Anke G Posthumus1, Ingrid A Peters1,2, Gerard J Borsboom3, Maarten F C M Knapen1,2, Gouke J Bonsel4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Foundation Prenatal Screening Southwest Region of the Netherlands, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Utrecht Medical Centre (UMCU), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the Netherlands, all women are claimed to have equal access to prenatal screening (PS). Prior research demonstrated substantial inequalities in PS uptake associated with socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic background. The suggested pathway was a lack of intention to participate in PS among these subgroups. We studied the background of inequalities in PS participation, challenging intention heterogeneity as the single explanation. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression analyses of the national PS registry, focusing on the four largest cities in the Netherlands (n = 4578, years 2011-2013), stratified by SES. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) any uptake of PS (yes/no) and (2) uptake (one/two tests) for women who intended to participate in two tests. Determinants included intention, ethnicity, practice, and age. RESULTS: Of non-Western women, 85.7% were screened versus 89.7% of Western women. Intention was an important explanatory factor in all models. However, after correction for intention, ethnicity remained a significant determinant for differences in uptake. Ethnicity and SES also interacted, indicating that non-Western women in low SES areas had the lowest uptake (corrected for intention). CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Socioeconomic status and ethnicity related inequalities in PS uptake are only partially explained by intention heterogeneity; other pathways, in particular provider-related determinants, may play a role.
OBJECTIVES: In the Netherlands, all women are claimed to have equal access to prenatal screening (PS). Prior research demonstrated substantial inequalities in PS uptake associated with socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic background. The suggested pathway was a lack of intention to participate in PS among these subgroups. We studied the background of inequalities in PS participation, challenging intention heterogeneity as the single explanation. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression analyses of the national PS registry, focusing on the four largest cities in the Netherlands (n = 4578, years 2011-2013), stratified by SES. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) any uptake of PS (yes/no) and (2) uptake (one/two tests) for women who intended to participate in two tests. Determinants included intention, ethnicity, practice, and age. RESULTS: Of non-Western women, 85.7% were screened versus 89.7% of Western women. Intention was an important explanatory factor in all models. However, after correction for intention, ethnicity remained a significant determinant for differences in uptake. Ethnicity and SES also interacted, indicating that non-Western women in low SES areas had the lowest uptake (corrected for intention). CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Socioeconomic status and ethnicity related inequalities in PS uptake are only partially explained by intention heterogeneity; other pathways, in particular provider-related determinants, may play a role.
Authors: Johanna Mayer; Susanne Brandstetter; Christina Tischer; Birgit Seelbach-Göbel; Sara Fill Malfertheiner; Michael Melter; Michael Kabesch; Christian Apfelbacher Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 3.105
Authors: Karuna R M van der Meij; Annabel Njio; Linda Martin; Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal; Mireille N Bekker; Elsbeth H van Vliet-Lachotzki; A Jeanine E M van der Ven; Adriana Kater-Kuipers; Danielle R M Timmermans; Erik A Sistermans; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Lidewij Henneman Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 5.351
Authors: Hanna M Heller; Annemijn V R de Vries; Adriaan W Hoogendoorn; Fedde Scheele; Willem J Kop; Christianne J M de Groot; Adriaan Honig; Birit F P Broekman Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2022-06-02
Authors: Karuna R M van der Meij; Caroline Kooij; Mireille N Bekker; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Lidewij Henneman Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 3.242