Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28884405›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2018

Ethnicity and Language Proficiency Differences in the Provision of and Intention to Use Prenatal Screening for Down's Syndrome and Congenital Anomalies. A Prospective, Non-selected, Register-Based Study in the Netherlands.

Ingrid A Peters, Kirsten M Heetkamp, Nicolette T C Ursem, Eric A P Steegers, Semiha Denktaş, Maarten F C M Knapen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Why NIPT should be publicly funded.Journal of medical ethics · 2020
    Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ingrid A PetersDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Wytemaweg 80, Na-1515, 3015 GE, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. i.a.peters@erasmusmc.nl.
Kirsten M HeetkampDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Wytemaweg 80, Na-1515, 3015 GE, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nicolette T C UrsemDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Wytemaweg 80, Na-1515, 3015 GE, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eric A P SteegersDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Wytemaweg 80, Na-1515, 3015 GE, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Semiha DenktaşDepartment Social and Behavioural Sciences, EUC/Erasmus University Rotterdam, Nieuwemarkt 1a, 3011 HP, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maarten F C M KnapenDivision of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Wytemaweg 80, Na-1515, 3015 GE, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLHPO Center (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective We aimed to conduct an analysis of the associations between the information provision procedure of prenatal screening for Down's syndrome and congenital anomalies and the intention to participate in prenatal screening (PS) of ethnicity groups and Dutch language proficiency groups. Design Using a prospective web-based registration form, we asked counselors (midwives, general practitioners, nurses and gynecologists) to report whether and how they offered information about PS to pregnant women. Duration The study was conducted from 2008 to 2010. Participants We collected data on the characteristics of the women who received an information offer about PS from counselors. Measurements Measures included socio-demographic and language proficiency level (LPL) characteristics, key elements of the provision procedure of PS, and intentional participation in PS. Findings The dataset represents 37% of the total population in the study area. Women with a non-native Dutch background and/or insufficient Dutch LPL received fewer information offers about PS, faced a reduced chance of receiving counseling, and showed lower intentional participation rates for PS. Key Conclusions Women with a non-native Dutch background and/or with an insufficient LPL are underserved in the Dutch PS program. These findings present evidence indicating that the fundamental principle of the Dutch Population Screening Act, namely, equal access to PS for all pregnant women, is not being realized. Implications for Practice Therefore, the study findings are important for national and international healthcare, policy makers and governmental professionals to allow ethnic and LPL-related differences in the provision and intentional uptake of PS.

Indexed as

EthnicityHealthcare DisparitiesIntentionLanguageAdultDown SyndromeFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInternetMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal CarePrenatal DiagnosisProspective StudiesCounselingEthnicityInequalitiesLanguage proficiencyPrenatal screening

Identifiers

PMID28884405
PMCPMC5845051
OpenAlexW2750723030

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.