4.0 Article

Mapping uptake of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome and other chromosome abnormalities across Victoria, Australia

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00648.x

关键词

demographic factors; Down syndrome; health behaviour; health services research; prenatal diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate geodemographic characteristics of women having prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome and other fetal chromosome abnormalities in Victoria, Australia. Methods: A descriptive analysis of population-based data on all confinements, amniocenteses and chorionic villus sampling for 1998 and 2002 was undertaken. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of 2002 data investigated geographical differences, including selected maternal features and a socioeconomic status measure that may be associated with uptake of diagnostic testing. Results: After adjusting for age, parity of three or more children was associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of testing (P < 0.001). Women from Africa were 61% less likely to have testing than women born in Australia (P < 0.01). While overall uptake of testing was lower than average in rural regions, only the Loddon Mallee had a significantly decreased likelihood of testing (OR 0.71 (0.53, 0.95), P = 0.02). A socioeconomic index of place of residence showed no association with uptake. Metropolitan and rural women giving birth in private hospitals were 31 and 60% more likely to have a test than women giving birth in public hospitals (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Geographical differences influence uptake of prenatal diagnosis, probably related to access to services. However, other maternal demographic factors also play a role in uptake. To ensure equity in access and autonomy in women's reproductive choices, reasons for exceptionally low uptake in certain localities or within certain subgroups of pregnant women should be investigated further, followed by appropriate changes in service provision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据