IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v106y2014icp67-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From policy making to service use. Down's syndrome antenatal screening in England, France and the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Vassy, Carine
  • Rosman, Sophia
  • Rousseau, Bénédicte

Abstract

In industrialised countries, certain biomedical innovations have come into general use, but the ways they are used vary considerably. Prenatal screening techniques for Down's syndrome are a perfect example of this. In 2010, screening rates stood at 61% in England and 84% in France; the previous year the rate was 26% in the Netherlands. The objective of our research, which took place in these three countries between 2008 and 2011, was to explain these differences. In these countries, public authorities focus on women's free access to innovations and on receiving their informed consent. But other aspects of screening policy vary, as do the health systems in which they are implemented. Our study shows that the sociotechnical settings which vary from country to country affected the interactions during the consultations we observed and thus impacted the decision of whether or not to screen.

Suggested Citation

  • Vassy, Carine & Rosman, Sophia & Rousseau, Bénédicte, 2014. "From policy making to service use. Down's syndrome antenatal screening in England, France and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 67-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:106:y:2014:i:c:p:67-74
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614000732
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stemerding, Dirk & van Berkel, Dymphie, 2001. "Maternal serum screening, political decision-making and social learning," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 111-125, May.
    2. Khoshnood, B. & Blondel, B. & De Vigan, C. & Bréart, G., 2004. "Socioeconomic Barriers to Informed Decisionmaking Regarding Maternal Serum Screening for Down Syndrome: Results of the French National Perinatal Survey of 1998," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 94(3), pages 484-491.
    3. Asch, A., 1999. "Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: A challenge to practice and policy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(11), pages 1649-1657.
    4. Vassy, Carine, 2006. "From a genetic innovation to mass health programmes: The diffusion of Down's Syndrome prenatal screening and diagnostic techniques in France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2041-2051, October.
    5. Williams, Clare & Alderson, Priscilla & Farsides, Bobbie, 2002. "Is nondirectiveness possible within the context of antenatal screening and testing?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 339-347, February.
    6. Reid, Bernie & Sinclair, Marlene & Barr, Owen & Dobbs, Frank & Crealey, Grainne, 2009. "A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 1561-1573, December.
    7. Press, Nancy & Browner, C. H., 1997. "Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 979-989, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Di Giacomo, Marina & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Siciliani, Luigi & Turati, Gilberto, 2022. "The effect of co-payments on the take-up of prenatal tests," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Ville, Isabelle & Mirlesse, Véronique, 2015. "Prenatal diagnosis: From policy to practice. Two distinct ways of managing prognostic uncertainty and anticipating disability in Brazil and in France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 19-26.
    3. Löwy, Ilana, 2022. "Non-invasive prenatal testing: A diagnostic innovation shaped by commercial interests and the regulation conundrum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Graham, Ruth H. & Robson, Stephen C. & Rankin, Judith M., 2008. "Understanding feticide: An analytic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 289-300, January.
    2. Hammer, Raphaël P. & Burton-Jeangros, Claudine, 2013. "Tensions around risks in pregnancy: A typology of women's experiences of surveillance medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 55-63.
    3. Williams, Clare, 2005. "Framing the fetus in medical work: rituals and practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 2085-2095, May.
    4. Williams, Clare & Ehrich, Kathryn & Farsides, Bobbie & Scott, Rosamund, 2007. "Facilitating choice, framing choice: Staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1094-1105, September.
    5. Koch, Lene & Nordahl Svendsen, Mette, 2005. "Providing solutions-defining problems: the imperative of disease prevention in genetic counselling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 823-832, February.
    6. García, Elisa & Timmermans, Danielle R.M. & van Leeuwen, Evert, 2008. "The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: Searching for justification," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 753-764, February.
    7. Pinar, Candas & Almeling, Rene & Gadarian, Shana Kushner, 2018. "Does genetic risk for common adult diseases influence reproductive plans? Evidence from a national survey experiment in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 62-68.
    8. Gisquet, Elsa, 2008. "Cerebral implants and Parkinson's disease: A unique form of biographical disruption?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1847-1851, December.
    9. Shaw, Alison, 2011. "Risk and reproductive decisions: British Pakistani couples' responses to genetic counselling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 111-120, July.
    10. Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Richard De Abreu Lourenco, 2001. "It's what's expected: genetic testing for inherited conditions, CHERE Discussion Paper No 46," Discussion Papers 46, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    11. Raspberry, Kelly Amanda & Skinner, Debra, 2011. "Negotiating desires and options: How mothers who carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(6), pages 992-998, March.
    12. Press, Nancy & Reynolds, Susan & Pinsky, Linda & Murthy, Vinaya & Leo, Michael & Burke, Wylie, 2005. "'That's like chopping off a finger because you're afraid it might get broken': Disease and illness in women's views of prophylactic mastectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 1106-1117, September.
    13. Aisling De Paor & Peter Blanck, 2016. "Precision Medicine and Advancing Genetic Technologies—Disability and Human Rights Perspectives," Laws, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, August.
    14. Heyman, Bob & Hundt, Gillian & Sandall, Jane & Spencer, Kevin & Williams, Clare & Grellier, Rachel & Pitson, Laura, 2006. "On being at higher risk: A qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2360-2372, May.
    15. Löwy, Ilana, 2022. "Non-invasive prenatal testing: A diagnostic innovation shaped by commercial interests and the regulation conundrum," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    16. Ahmed, Shenaz & Bryant, Louise D. & Tizro, Zahra & Shickle, Darren, 2012. "Interpretations of informed choice in antenatal screening: A cross-cultural, Q-methodology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(7), pages 997-1004.
    17. Carmen Dingemann & Martin Sonne & Benno Ure & Bettina Bohnhorst & Constantin von Kaisenberg & Sabine Pirr, 2019. "Impact of maternal education on the outcome of newborns requiring surgery for congenital malformations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, April.
    18. Sarkar, Soumodip & Mateus, Sara, 2022. "Value creation using minimal resources – A meta-synthesis of frugal innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    19. Andaya, Elise & Campo-Engelstein, Lisa, 2021. "Conceptualizing Pain and Personhood in the Periviable Period: Perspectives from Reproductive Health and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Clinicians," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    20. Shawna Benston, 2016. "CRISPR, a Crossroads in Genetic Intervention: Pitting the Right to Health against the Right to Disability," Laws, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:106:y:2014:i:c:p:67-74. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.