Down syndrome screening information in midwifery practices in the Netherlands: Strategies to integrate biomedical information

Midwifery awareness of diabetes in pregnancy screening guidelines in Aotearoa New Zealand

OBJECTIVE

Effective and timely management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requires early detection. However, screening rates have been shown to be relatively low in New Zealand, despite the introduction of national screening guidelines in 2014 which indicate that all pregnant women should be screened. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the awareness of the New Zealand Ministry of Health Diabetes in Pregnancy screening guidelines by New Zealand midwives.

DESIGN

A 24-question online survey based upon the New Zealand screening guidelines was distributed via New Zealand midwifery social media groups to explore the awareness of New Zealand midwives with regard to screening for diabetes in pregnancy. Free text comments were also allowed, these were broadly categorized and reviewed.

PARTICIPANTS

174 registered midwives in Aotearoa New Zealand completed the survey.

MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS

All participants responded that they routinely offer glycated haemoglobin screening for detection of undiagnosed pre-gestational diabetes, and 92.9% identified that this should occur prior to 20 weeks gestation (as per the national guidelines). However, less than two thirds of midwives thought that all women should be screened for GDM, with 18.2% indicating they would only do this if immediate risk factors were present. There also appeared to be some confusion over the time period for screening for GDM with 22.9% indicating that this should occur later than the guideline-recommended timepoint of 24-28 weeks gestation. Participants who identified as Māori and community-based midwives were most likely to screen for GDM 'only if risk factors were present'. Participants practicing for more than 6 years, those aged 45-54 years, and midwives identifying as Māori were most likely to screen for GDM after 28 weeks (though these did not reach statistical significance).

KEY CONCLUSIONS

The New Zealand Diabetes in Pregnancy screening guidelines do not appear to be well implemented in our sample group, particularly with regard to screening for GDM. This needs to be evaluated in a larger group of midwives, as education around the timeliness and importance of screening for all women may be required.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A lack of appropriate or timely screening for GDM may mean that women are not being diagnosed or managed appropriately, which in turn may have implications for both mother and child.

Non-invasive prenatal testing: A diagnostic innovation shaped by commercial interests and the regulation conundrum

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is grounded in the analysis of free circulating fetal DNA (cfDNA) in pregnant women's blood. The rolling out of this screening method was in large part driven by commercial firms, which hoped to reach a huge potential market by offering a test that was expected to be risk-free, reliable, inexpensive, and able to detect a wide range of genetic traits of the future child. To date, most predictions about the scope and uses of NIPT have not materialized: in 2020 NIPT detects only a limited number of genetic anomalies, while results have to be confirmed by amniocentesis. NIPT has become a commercial success. Nevertheless the implementation of NIPT has tended to diverge across different national settings. In countries that already have state-sponsored screening for Down risk, NIPT has been offered by the state health insurance to women defined as "high risk", using a variant of the test that detects only three autosomal aneuploidies: trisomy 21, 13 and 18. These countries effectively regulate the supply of NIPT on grounds of cost-effectiveness and reliability. In countries without state-sponsored screening for Down risk, in contrast, multiple versions of NIPT covering a wider range of birth defects are commonly available on the free market, and purchased by women at low as well as high risk of having an affected child. Market-based healthcare systems tend to present women who can afford to pay for NIPT with a largely unregulated choice of technologies - though reimbursement rules imposed by private insurance providers may serve in effect to regulate use by those consumers who cannot afford to pay for tests from their own pockets. This regulatory divergence is shaped by the presence or absence of prior state-sponsored screening programs for Down risk.

Reasons for accepting or declining Down syndrome screening in Dutch prospective mothers within the context of national policy and healthcare system characteristics: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Uptake rates for Down syndrome screening in the Netherlands are low compared to other European countries. To investigate the low uptake, we explored women's reasons for participation and possible influences of national healthcare system characteristics. Dutch prenatal care is characterised by an approach aimed at a low degree of medicalisation, with pregnant women initially considered to be at low risk. Prenatal screening for Down syndrome is offered to all women, with a 'right not to know' for women who do not want to be informed on this screening. At the time this study was performed, the test was not reimbursed for women aged 35 and younger.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study to explore reasons for participation and possible influences of healthcare system characteristics. Data were collected via ten semi-structured focus groups with women declining or accepting the offer of Down syndrome screening (n = 46). All focus groups were audio- and videotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded and content analysed.

RESULTS

Women declining Down syndrome screening did not consider Down syndrome a condition severe enough to justify termination of pregnancy. Young women declining felt supported in their decision by perceived confirmation of their obstetric caregiver and reassured by system characteristics (costs and age restriction). Women accepting Down syndrome screening mainly wanted to be reassured or be prepared to care for a child with Down syndrome. By weighing up the pros and cons of testing, obstetric caregivers supported young women who accepted in the decision-making process. This was helpful, although some felt the need to defend their decision to accept the test offer due to their young age. For some young women accepting testing, costs were considered a disincentive to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

Presentation of prenatal screening affects how the offer is attended to, perceived and utilised. By offering screening with age restriction and additional costs, declining is considered the preferred choice, which might account for low Dutch uptake rates. Autonomous and informed decision-making in Down syndrome screening should be based on the personal interest in knowing the individual risk of having a child with Down syndrome and system characteristics should not influence participation.