Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study

Authors: Karina Hjort-Pedersen, Annette Wind Olesen, Ester Garne, Lene Sperling

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of the study was to estimate the proportion of women giving birth in two hospitals in the Region of Southern Denmark who did not attend the malformation scan and to elucidate the reasons for not participating.

Methods

In this register-based descriptive study, we used patient administration systems to identify women who had given birth at two Danish hospitals between March 2013 and January 2015. We then linked this information with the hospital database for fetal medicine (Astraia) to identify women who did not attend the malformation scan at week 18–20. We reviewed the medical records of these women to validate the data and to identify the reason for non-participation.

Results

Of 7690 births, 153 (2%) women did not attend the malformation scan. The main reason for non-participation was a passive deselection (81%). Most of these women were not present in Denmark at the time of the malformation scan (61%) and few women declined (8%).

Conclusions

Less than 2% of a birth cohort in two major hospitals in Denmark did not attend the free offer of a malformation scan. Most of these women (81%) did not actively decide against the malformation scan. Very few (0.2%) declined the malformation scan. Non-attendance is not always due to an active decision made by the pregnant woman.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
3.
go back to reference Uldall SW. Attitudes among Danes toward termination of pregnancy for social reasons and fetal abnormality. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:716–21.CrossRefPubMed Uldall SW. Attitudes among Danes toward termination of pregnancy for social reasons and fetal abnormality. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:716–21.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Uldall SW, Norup MS. Attitudes among Danes toward prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:230–3.CrossRefPubMed Uldall SW, Norup MS. Attitudes among Danes toward prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:230–3.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Crombag NMTH, Vellinga YE, Kluijfhout SA, Bryant LD, Ward PA, Iedema-Kuiper R, et al. Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:437.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Crombag NMTH, Vellinga YE, Kluijfhout SA, Bryant LD, Ward PA, Iedema-Kuiper R, et al. Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:437.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Gitsels-van der Wal JT, Verhoeven PS, Manniën J, Martin L, Reinders HS, Spelten E, et al. Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:264.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gitsels-van der Wal JT, Verhoeven PS, Manniën J, Martin L, Reinders HS, Spelten E, et al. Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies; a multicentre prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:264.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Crombag NMTH, Schielen PCJI, Hukkelhoven CW, Iedema R, Bensing JM, Visser GHA, et al. Determinants of first trimester combined test participation within the central region of the Netherlands: determinants of first trimester combined test uptake. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:486–92.CrossRefPubMed Crombag NMTH, Schielen PCJI, Hukkelhoven CW, Iedema R, Bensing JM, Visser GHA, et al. Determinants of first trimester combined test participation within the central region of the Netherlands: determinants of first trimester combined test uptake. Prenat Diagn. 2015;35:486–92.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Bakker M, Birnie E, Pajkrt E, Bilardo CM, Snijders RJM. Low uptake of the combined test in the Netherlands - which factors contribute?: low uptake of screening. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:1305–12.CrossRefPubMed Bakker M, Birnie E, Pajkrt E, Bilardo CM, Snijders RJM. Low uptake of the combined test in the Netherlands - which factors contribute?: low uptake of screening. Prenat Diagn. 2012;32:1305–12.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Kleinveld JH, van den Berg M, van Eijk JTM, van Vugt JMG, van der Wal G, Timmermans DRM. Does offering prenatal screening influence pregnant women’s attitudes regarding prenatal testing? Community Genet. 2008;11:368–74.PubMed Kleinveld JH, van den Berg M, van Eijk JTM, van Vugt JMG, van der Wal G, Timmermans DRM. Does offering prenatal screening influence pregnant women’s attitudes regarding prenatal testing? Community Genet. 2008;11:368–74.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Wolf HT, Wulff CB, Ekelund C, Sundberg K, Tabor A. Characteristics of first-trimester screening of non-responders in a high-uptake population. Dan Med J. 2016;63(4). Wolf HT, Wulff CB, Ekelund C, Sundberg K, Tabor A. Characteristics of first-trimester screening of non-responders in a high-uptake population. Dan Med J. 2016;63(4).
12.
go back to reference Jørgensen FS. Attitudes to prenatal screening, diagnosis and research among pregnant women who accept or decline an alpha-fetoprotein test. Prenat Diagn. 1995;15:419–29.CrossRefPubMed Jørgensen FS. Attitudes to prenatal screening, diagnosis and research among pregnant women who accept or decline an alpha-fetoprotein test. Prenat Diagn. 1995;15:419–29.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Boyd PA, Devigan C, Khoshnood B, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H, et al. Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:689–96.CrossRef Boyd PA, Devigan C, Khoshnood B, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H, et al. Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:689–96.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Georgsson Ohman S, Waldenström U. Second-trimester routine ultrasound screening: expectations and experiences in a nationwide Swedish sample. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32:15–22.CrossRefPubMed Georgsson Ohman S, Waldenström U. Second-trimester routine ultrasound screening: expectations and experiences in a nationwide Swedish sample. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32:15–22.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7 Suppl):30–3.CrossRefPubMed Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7 Suppl):30–3.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Ternby E, Axelsson O, Annerén G, Lindgren P, Ingvoldstad C. Why do pregnant women accept or decline prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome? J Community Genet. 2016;7:237–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ternby E, Axelsson O, Annerén G, Lindgren P, Ingvoldstad C. Why do pregnant women accept or decline prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome? J Community Genet. 2016;7:237–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference García E, Timmermans DRM, van Leeuwen E. Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28:115–20.CrossRefPubMed García E, Timmermans DRM, van Leeuwen E. Rethinking autonomy in the context of prenatal screening decision-making. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28:115–20.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Petersson K, Lindkvist M, Persson M, Conner P, Åhman A, Mogren I. Prenatal diagnosis in Sweden 2011 to 2013-a register-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:365.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Petersson K, Lindkvist M, Persson M, Conner P, Åhman A, Mogren I. Prenatal diagnosis in Sweden 2011 to 2013-a register-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:365.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Skjøth MM, Draborg E, Lamont RF, Pedersen CD, Hansen HP, Ekstrøm CT, et al. Informed choice about Down syndrome screening - effect of an eHealth tool: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; Skjøth MM, Draborg E, Lamont RF, Pedersen CD, Hansen HP, Ekstrøm CT, et al. Informed choice about Down syndrome screening - effect of an eHealth tool: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;
Metadata
Title
Reasons for non-participation in malformation scans in Denmark: a cohort study
Authors
Karina Hjort-Pedersen
Annette Wind Olesen
Ester Garne
Lene Sperling
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1877-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2018 Go to the issue