Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

There 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.

Conclusions

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Crombag NM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4263059 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Crombag Neeltje M T H NM Vellinga Ynke E YE Kluijfhout Sandra A SA Bryant Louise D LD Ward Pat A PA Iedema-Kuiper Rita R Schielen Peter C J I PC Bensing Jozien M JM Visser Gerard H A GH Tabor Ann A Hirst Janet J

BMC health services research 20140925

<h4>Background</h4>The 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 upt ...[more]

PMID: 25257793

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe study aim was to explore experiences of patients with pleural mesothelioma of follow-up care in three National Health Service (NHS) Trusts to develop recommendations for practice.DesignThe study design was qualitative and comprised three interlinked phases: a documentary analysis, interviews and consultation meetings. Altheide and Johnson's Analytic Realism theoretical framework guided the thematic data analysis process.SettingThe study was conducted in three NHS Trusts in South England. Two were secondary care settings and the third was a tertiary centre.ParticipantsThe secondary care trusts saw 15-20 patients with new mesothelioma per year and the tertiary centre 30-40. The tertiary centre had a designated mesothelioma team. Twenty-one patients met the inclusion criteria: >18 years, mesothelioma diagnosis and in follow-up care. Non-English speaking participants, those unable to provide written informed consent or those whom the clinical team felt would find participation too distressing were excluded. All participants were white, 71% were 70-79 years old and 71% were men. Three consultation meetings were conducted with key stakeholders including mesothelioma nurse specialists, patients with mesothelioma, carers and local clinical commissioning group members.Main outcome measuresSpecific outcomes were to gain a detailed understanding of mesothelioma follow-up care pathways and processes and to develop coproduced recommendations for practice.ResultsMesothelioma pathways were not always distinct from lung cancer care pathways. All trusts provided follow-up information and resources but there was varied information on how to access local support groups, research or clinical trial participation. Five themes were developed relating to people; processes; places; purpose and perception of care. Coproduced recommendations for improving mesothelioma follow-up pathways were developed following the consultation meetings.ConclusionsThis study has developed recommendations which identify the need for patients with pleural mesothelioma to access consistent, specialist, streamlined mesothelioma care, centred around specialist mesothelioma nurses and respiratory consultants, with input from the wider multidisciplinary team.

Project description:ObjectivesTo illuminate patterns observed in International Cancer Benchmarking Programme studies by extending understanding of the various influences on presentation and referral with cancer symptoms.DesignCross-country comparison of Denmark, England and Sweden with qualitative analysis of in-depth interview accounts of the prediagnostic process in lung or bowel cancer.Participants155 women and men, aged between 35 and 86 years old, diagnosed with lung or bowel cancer in 6?months before interview.SettingParticipants recruited through primary and secondary care, social media and word of mouth. Interviews collected by social scientists or nurse researchers during 2015, mainly in participants' homes.ResultsParticipants reported difficulties in interpreting diffuse bodily sensations and symptoms and deciding when to consult. There were examples of swift referrals by primary care professionals in all three countries. In all countries, participants described difficulty deciding if and when to consult, highlighting concerns about access to general practitioner appointments and overstretched primary care services, although this appears less prominent in the Swedish data. It was not unusual for there to be more than one consultation before referral and we noted two distinct patterns of repeated consultation: (1) situations where the participant left the primary care consultation with a plan of action about what should happen next; (2) participants were unclear about under which conditions to return to the doctors. This second pattern sometimes extended over many weeks during which patients described uncertainty, and sometimes frustration, about if and when they should return and whether there were any other feasible investigations. The latter pattern appeared more evident in the interviews in England and Denmark than Sweden.ConclusionWe suggest that if clear action plans, as part of safety netting, were routinely used in primary care consultations then uncertainty, false reassurance and the inefficiency and distress of multiple consultations could be reduced.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets