Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25257793›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2014

Explaining variation in Down's syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews.

Neeltje M T H Crombag, Ynke E Vellinga, Sandra A Kluijfhout, Louise D Bryant, Pat A Ward, Rita Iedema-Kuiper, Peter C J I Schielen, Jozien M Bensing, Gerard H A Visser, Ann Tabor and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of National Screening Programs on Down syndrome prevalence and outcomes.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Down Syndrome in Brazil: Occurrence and Associated Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Neeltje M T H CrombagDepartment of Obstetrics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Huispost KE 04,123,1, Postbus 85090, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands. N.crombag@umcutrecht.nl.
Ynke E Vellinga
Sandra A Kluijfhout
Louise D Bryant
Pat A Ward
Rita Iedema-Kuiper
Peter C J I Schielen
Jozien M Bensing
Gerard H A Visser
Ann Tabor
Janet Hirst

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe offer of prenatal Down's syndrome screening is part of routine antenatal care in most of Europe; however screening uptake varies significantly across countries. Although a decision to accept or reject screening is a personal choice, it is unlikely that the widely differing uptake rates across countries can be explained by variation in individual values alone.The aim of this study was to compare Down's syndrome screening policies and programmes in the Netherlands, where uptake is relatively low (<30%) with England and Denmark where uptake is higher (74 and > 90% respectively), in an attempt to explain the observed variation in national uptake rates.

methodsWe used a mixed methods approach with an embedded design: a) documentary analysis and b) expert stakeholder analysis. National central statistical offices and legal documents were studied first to gain insight in demographic characteristics, cultural background, organization and structure of healthcare followed by documentary analysis of primary and secondary sources on relevant documents on DSS policies and programme. To enhance interpretation of these findings we performed in-depth interviews with relevant expert stakeholders.

resultsThere were many similarities in the demographics, healthcare systems, government abortion legislation and Down's syndrome screening policy across the studied countries. However, the additional cost for Down's syndrome screening over and above standard antenatal care in the Netherlands and an emphasis on the 'right not to know' about screening in this country were identified as potential explanations for the 'low' uptake rates of Down's syndrome screening in the Netherlands. The social context and positive framing of the offer at the service delivery level may play a role in the relatively high uptake rates in Denmark.

conclusionsThis paper makes an important contribution to understanding how macro-level demographic, social and healthcare delivery factors may have an impact on national uptake rates for Down's syndrome screening. It has suggested a number of policy level and system characteristics that may go some way to explaining the relatively low uptake rates of Down's syndrome screening in the Netherlands when compared to England and Denmark.

Indexed as

AdultCultural CharacteristicsDecision MakingDenmarkDown SyndromeEnglandFemaleHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicNational Health ProgramsNetherlandsPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisQualitative ResearchSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID25257793
PMCPMC4263059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.