MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Affecting the Uptake of Prenatal Screening Tests for Congenital Anomalies

2014· article· en· W2330109992 on OpenAlexaff
Janneke T. Gitsels-van der Wal, Pieternel Verhoeven, Judith Manniën, Linda Martin, Hans S. Reinders, Evelien Spelten, Eileen K. Hutton

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrenatal screeningPrenatal carePregnancySocioeconomic statusObstetricsGestationEthnic groupDemographyFetusPrenatal diagnosisPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All pregnant women in The Netherlands are eligible for prenatal screening, including the combined test (CT) at approximately 12 weeks to determine the possibility of Down syndrome and the fetal anomaly scan (FAS) at approximately 20 weeks to detect structural anomalies. These tests are not routinely offered as part of prenatal care. The mean uptake of congenital anomaly screening tests has been approximately 27% for the CT and approximately 91% (80%–99%) for the FAS. This study was performed to investigate factors influencing the uptake of these screening tests, considering that uptake is associated with religious background, age, parity, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and proficiency in Dutch. Between 2009 and 2011, data were collected from 20 midwifery practices in The Netherlands. The response rate was 32% to 72%. Questions regarding CT and FAS uptake were posed to participants between 35 weeks’ gestation and birth and at 6 weeks postpartum. Sociodemographic characteristics were obtained from a participant’s profile in the initial questionnaire. Dichotomous variables were accepting or declining CT or FAS. Of the 7907 participants, 5216 women completed questionnaires about CT and FAS. The mean actual uptake for CT was 23% (n = 1183) and 90% for FAS (n = 4679). The mean CT uptake of 808 women with a non-Dutch background was 29% compared with 22% (P < 0.001) for native Dutch participants. The mean uptake of FAS non-Dutch women was 89%, similar to that for the Dutch participants. Women who were Protestant or living in the eastern region were significantly less likely to have CT (odds ratio [OR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13–0.80; P = 0.015; OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.21–0.93; P = 0.033, respectively). Older women, those with income higher than the mean, or women from the first generation were significantly more likely to have the CT (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.44–2.78; P < 0.001; OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.12–3.45; P = 0.018; OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.75–4.85; P < 0.001, respectively). For FAS among western non-Dutch women, those who were Protestant or Catholic were significantly less likely to have FAS (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05–0.34; P < 0.001; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.09–0.81; P = 0.020, respectively). In the CT model for nonwestern women of non-Dutch background, older women or women with a limited proficiency in Dutch were significantly more likely to have CT (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.25–2.39; P < 0.001; OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.34–3.56; P = 0.002, respectively). For FAS among nonwestern non-Dutch women, higher education had an independent positive impact on the uptake (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.02–2.14; P = 0.041), whereas being Muslim or from the first generation had an independent negative impact on uptake (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19–0.72; P = 0.003; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.13–0.59; P < 0.001, respectively). Being Protestant, having an income higher than the mean, and having a limited proficiency in Dutch were not independently associated with FAS uptake. This nationwide study on factors determining the uptake of CT and FAS found an association with income, parity, religious affiliation, ethnicity, age, education, and regional place of residence. These results may explain differences among women choosing or declining early and late screening but not the large variation in the test uptake among practices or between The Netherlands and other countries.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207