Parental refusal of prenatal screening for aneuploidies
-
Lynn Bitar
,
Christian Chaccour
Abstract
Objectives
To analyze the reasons for refusal of aneuploidy screening in a multicultural Middle Eastern population.
Methods
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
-
Research ethics: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). It is registered in our Ethics Committee registry under the number CEHDF-1888.
-
Informed consent: A written consent to participate in the study was obtained following thorough explanation about the purpose and limitations of the study.
-
Author contributions: All authors contributed to the preparation, writing and editing of the manuscript. The authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: The authors state no conflict interest.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Data availability: Data are available upon request.
References
1. Kazemi, M, Salehi, M, Kheirollahi, M. Down syndrome: current status, challenges and future perspectives. Int J Mol Cell Med 2016;5:125–33.Suche in Google Scholar
2. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
3. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
4. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
5. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
6. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
7. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
8. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
9. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
10. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
11. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
12. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
13. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
14. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
15. 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.Suche in Google Scholar
16. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
17. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
18. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
19. 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.Suche in Google Scholar
20. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
21. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
22. 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.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Corner of Academy
- The outcome of reduced and non-reduced triplet pregnancies managed in a tertiary hospital during a 15-year-period – a retrospective cohort study
- Original Articles – Obstetrics
- Parental refusal of prenatal screening for aneuploidies
- Analysis of maternal mortality in Berlin, Germany – discrepancy between reported maternal mortality and comprehensive death certificate exploration
- Second twin outcome at birth: retrospective analysis in a single tertiary centre in Malaysia
- Incidence and first trimester risk factors of stillbirth in Indonesia
- Correlation of fetal heart rate dynamics to inflammatory markers and brain-derived neurotrophic factor during pregnancy
- Preliminary assessment of the Healthy Early Life Moments (HELMS) webinars in empowering Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) concept among healthcare professionals – a pragmatic serial cross-sectional study
- Original Articles – Fetus
- The changing Doppler patterns and perinatal outcomes of monochorionic diamniotic twins with selective fetal growth restriction
- Effects of umbilical vein flow on midbrain growth and cortical development in late onset fetal growth restricted fetuses: a prospective cross-sectional study
- Original Articles – Neonates
- Prediction of bronchopulmonary dysplasia by the chest radiographic thoracic area on day one in infants with exomphalos
- Impact of birth weight to placental weight ratio and other perinatal risk factors on left ventricular dimensions in newborns: a prospective cohort analysis
- Changes in regional tissue oxygen saturation values during the first week of life in stable preterm infants
- Letters to the Editor
- Optimal closure of the uterus during cesarean section: beyond the two layers
- Reply to: “Optimal closure of the uterus during cesarean section: beyond the two layers” commenting on “The effect of uterine closure technique on cesarean scar niche development after multiple cesarean deliveries”
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Corner of Academy
- The outcome of reduced and non-reduced triplet pregnancies managed in a tertiary hospital during a 15-year-period – a retrospective cohort study
- Original Articles – Obstetrics
- Parental refusal of prenatal screening for aneuploidies
- Analysis of maternal mortality in Berlin, Germany – discrepancy between reported maternal mortality and comprehensive death certificate exploration
- Second twin outcome at birth: retrospective analysis in a single tertiary centre in Malaysia
- Incidence and first trimester risk factors of stillbirth in Indonesia
- Correlation of fetal heart rate dynamics to inflammatory markers and brain-derived neurotrophic factor during pregnancy
- Preliminary assessment of the Healthy Early Life Moments (HELMS) webinars in empowering Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) concept among healthcare professionals – a pragmatic serial cross-sectional study
- Original Articles – Fetus
- The changing Doppler patterns and perinatal outcomes of monochorionic diamniotic twins with selective fetal growth restriction
- Effects of umbilical vein flow on midbrain growth and cortical development in late onset fetal growth restricted fetuses: a prospective cross-sectional study
- Original Articles – Neonates
- Prediction of bronchopulmonary dysplasia by the chest radiographic thoracic area on day one in infants with exomphalos
- Impact of birth weight to placental weight ratio and other perinatal risk factors on left ventricular dimensions in newborns: a prospective cohort analysis
- Changes in regional tissue oxygen saturation values during the first week of life in stable preterm infants
- Letters to the Editor
- Optimal closure of the uterus during cesarean section: beyond the two layers
- Reply to: “Optimal closure of the uterus during cesarean section: beyond the two layers” commenting on “The effect of uterine closure technique on cesarean scar niche development after multiple cesarean deliveries”
