Parental refusal of prenatal screening for aneuploidies.
antenatal screening
pregnancy
refusal
Journal
Journal of perinatal medicine
ISSN: 1619-3997
Titre abrégé: J Perinat Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0361031
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Mar 2024
15 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
24
09
2023
accepted:
15
01
2024
medline:
15
3
2024
pubmed:
15
3
2024
entrez:
14
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To analyze the reasons for refusal of aneuploidy screening in a multicultural Middle Eastern population. The study included patients delivering in a university hospital, who had refused aneuploidy screening during their pregnancy. We evaluated through a questionnaire submitted during the postpartum period the sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs, attitudes, and the main reason underpinning their choice. Religious, ethical, and financial factors, personal beliefs, medical information, perceived media information, and familial input were assessed through a Likert scale. Our pilot study included 70 patients. The main reason (33 %) was the refusal to terminate pregnancy if the screening tests ultimately led to a diagnosis of aneuploidy. Lack of adequate information on the availability and benefits of this screening method (28 %), religious beliefs (17 %), in addition to other minor reasons such as financial considerations, familial recommendations, late pregnancy follow-ups, and media influence were also identified as contributing factors. Aneuploidy screening is routinely offered to couples, with varying uptake rates observed worldwide. Sufficient information on prenatal screening and diagnosis should be provided to all pregnant women, presenting all available options, thus enabling them to make a free and informed choice during their pregnancy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38485523
pii: jpm-2023-0399
doi: 10.1515/jpm-2023-0399
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.
Références
Kazemi, M, Salehi, M, Kheirollahi, M. Down syndrome: current status, challenges and future perspectives. Int J Mol Cell Med 2016;5:125–33.
Carlsson, T, Starke, V, Mattsson, E. The emotional process from diagnosis to birth following a prenatal diagnosis of fetal anomaly: a qualitative study of messages in online discussion boards. Midwifery 2017;48:53–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2017.02.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.02.010
Carlson, LM, Vora, NL. Prenatal diagnosis: screening and diagnostic tools. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2017;44:245–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2017.02.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2017.02.004
Kagan, KO, Sonek, J, Wagner, P, Hoopmann, M. Principles of first trimester screening in the age of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis: screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017;296:645–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4459-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4459-9
Kagan, KO, Sonek, J, Kozlowski, P. Antenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2022;305:825–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06477-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06477-5
Kagan, KO, Wright, D, Baker, A, Sahota, D, Nicolaides, KH. Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:618–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5331 .
doi: 10.1002/uog.5331
Pop-Tudose, ME, Armean, P, Pop, IV. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome: popularity, perceptions and factors associated with acceptance or refusal of testing. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med 2022;35:6505–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2021.1916910 .
doi: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1916910
Malone, FD, Canick, JA, Ball, RH, Nyberg, DA, Comstock, CH, Bukowski, R, et al.. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down’s syndrome. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2001–11. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043693 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043693
Sahin, NH, Gungor, I. Congenital anomalies: parents’ anxiety and women’s concerns before prenatal testing and women’s opinions towards the risk factors. J Clin Nurs 2008;17:827–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02023.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02023.x
Asplin, N, Wessel, H, Marions, L, Ohman, SG. Pregnant women’s perspectives on decision-making when a fetal malformation is detected by ultrasound examination. Sex Reprod Healthc 2013;4:79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2013.02.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2013.02.001
Wool, C. Systematic review of the literature: parental outcomes after diagnosis of fetal anomaly. Adv Neonatal Care 2011;11:182–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0b013e31821bd92d .
doi: 10.1097/ANC.0b013e31821bd92d
Wapner, R, Thom, E, Simpson, JL, Pergament, E, Silver, R, Filkins, K, et al.. First-trimester screening for trisomies 21 and 18. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1405–13. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa025273 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa025273
Liamputtong, P, Halliday, JL, Warren, R, Watson, F, Bell, RJ. Why do women decline prenatal screening and diagnosis? Australian women’s perspective. Women Health 2003;37:89–108. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v37n02_06 .
doi: 10.1300/J013v37n02_06
Lafarge, C, Larrieu, G, Ville, I. Why do French women refuse to have Down’s syndrome screening by maternal serum testing? A mixed methods study. Midwifery 2022;110:103351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2022.103351 .
doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2022.103351
Press, N, Browner, CH. Risk, autonomy, and responsibility: informed consent for prenatal testing. Hastings Cent Rep 1995;25:S9–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/3562123 .
doi: 10.2307/3562123
Evans, MI, Pryde, PG, Evans, WJ, Johnson, MP. The choices women make about prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993;8:70–80. https://doi.org/10.1159/000263875 .
doi: 10.1159/000263875
van den Berg, M, Timmermans, DRM, Kleinveld, JH, Garcia, E, van Vugt, JMG, van der Wal, G. Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women’s reasons. Prenat Diagn 2005;25:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1090 .
doi: 10.1002/pd.1090
Michie, S, Dormandy, E, Marteau, TM. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns 2002;48:87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00089-7 .
doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00089-7
Babay, ZA. Attitudes of a high-risk group of pregnant Saudi Arabian women to prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies. East Mediterr Health J 2004;10:522–7. https://doi.org/10.26719/2004.10.4-5.522 .
doi: 10.26719/2004.10.4-5.522
Khoshnood, B, Blondel, B, de Vigan, C, Bréart, G. Socioeconomic barriers to informed decisionmaking regarding maternal serum screening for down syndrome: results of the French National Perinatal Survey of 1998. Am J Public Health 2004;94:484–91. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.94.3.484 .
doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.3.484
Crombag, NM, Bensing, JM, Iedema-Kuiper, R, Schielen, PC, Visser, GH. Determinants affecting pregnant women’s utilization of prenatal screening for Down syndrome: a review of the literature. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;26:1676–81. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.798289 .
doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.798289
Bakker, M, Birnie, E, Pajkrt, E, Bilardo, CM, Snijders, RJM. Low uptake of the combined test in The Netherlands – which factors contribute? Prenat Diagn 2012;32:1305–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.4001 .
doi: 10.1002/pd.4001