A systematic review of issues around antenatal screening and prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders: women of Asian origin in western countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antenatal screening has become standard practice in many countries. However, not all pregnant women choose to be tested. In the UK, the incidence of some birth defects is found to be higher in babies of Asian women than in those of women from other ethnic groups, while there is some evidence suggesting that ethnic minorities, especially Asian women, are less likely to undergo antenatal screening and prenatal diagnosis, the reasons for which are unclear. This study aims to identify and describe the literature on issues around antenatal screening and prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders among women of Asian descent in western countries. The Medline, CINAHL, ASSIA and PsycInfo databases were searched for the period of 1995 and 2010. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria and were therefore reviewed. In general, Asian women were found to hold favourable attitudes towards testing. However, they reported a poorer understanding of testing than white women and not being offered a test, and were less able to make informed choices. Asian women in the UK and Australia were found to be less likely than their white counterparts to have undergone prenatal diagnosis, while such differences were not found in the USA and Canada. The equity of access to quality antenatal care, alongside comprehensive well thought out antenatal screening programmes, can be assured if strategies are in place which actively involve all ethnic groups and take account of social and cultural appropriateness for the population served. An understanding of broad factors that inform women's decision-making on test uptake would help health professionals provide women and their families with more culturally sensitive information and support that they may additionally need to make more informed choices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".