ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Utilisation of supplementary prenatal screening and diagnostics in Germany: cross-sectional study using data from the KUNO Kids Health Study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting total healthcare demand using machine learning: separate and combined analysis of predisposing, enabling, and need factors.BMC health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAppropriate health system utilisation during pregnancy is fundamental for maintaining maternal and child's health. To study the use and determinants of supplementary prenatal screening and diagnostics in Germany this study provides comprehensive data.
methodsWe obtained data from a recently established prospective German birth cohort study, the KUNO Kids Health Study. Analyses are based on Andersen's Behavioural Model of health system use, which distinguishes between predisposing (e.g. country of birth), enabling (e.g. health insurance) and need factors (e.g. at-risk pregnancy). We examined bi- and multivariate association with the use of supplementary prenatal screening and diagnostics using logistic regression.
resultsThe study has a sample size of 1886 participating mothers. One fifth of the mothers investigated did not use any supplementary prenatal screening or diagnostics. Notably, the chance of using supplementary prenatal screening and diagnostics more than doubled if the pregnant woman had a private health insurance (OR 2.336; 95% CI 1.527-3.573). Higher maternal age (OR 1.038; 95% CI 1.006-1.071) and environmental tobacco smoke exposure (OR 1.465 95% CI 1.071-2.004) increased the use of supplementary prenatal screening and diagnostics. However, regarding need factors only having an at-risk-pregnancy (OR 1.688; 95% CI 1.271-2.241) showed an independent association.
conclusionThe important role of the type of health insurance and the relatively small influence of need factors was surprising. Especially with respect to equity in accessing health care, this needs further attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.