Advertisement

Neuropraxis

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 46–51 | Cite as

Dilemma’s rondom prenatale screening op downsyndroom

  • Neeltje M. T. H. Crombag
  • Linda Martin
  • Janneke T. Gitsels
Artikel

Samenvatting

Prenatale screening op congenitale afwijkingen is in Nederland vanaf 2007 beschikbaar voor elke zwangere vrouw. Ontwikkelingen en medische vernieuwingen in dit domein volgen elkaar snel op en leiden onder meer tot steeds betere testkarakteristieken. Ondanks dat blijven de dilemma’s voor aanstaande ouders onveranderd complex. Vergeleken met omliggende landen wordt in Nederland relatief weinig gebruikgemaakt van prenatale screening op downsyndroom. In dit artikel beschrijven we kort de geschiedenis van prenatale screening op downsyndroom in Nederland en de achtergrond van het relatief lage deelnamepercentage. Vervolgens beschrijven we welke factoren een rol spelen bij gebruik van prenatale screening op diverse niveaus (overheid, organisatie, maatschappij, zorgverlening), met welke dilemma’s aanstaande ouders te maken krijgen en hoe ouders hierin worden begeleid. Tot slot reflecteren we op de rol van prenatale screening op aangeboren afwijkingen in de Nederlandse gezondheidzorg en maatschappij.

Trefwoorden

downsyndroom prenatale screening kwalitatief onderzoek besluitvorming 

Dilemmas regarding Down syndrome screening

Literatuur

  1. 1.
    Hewison J. Psychological aspects of individualized choice and reproductive autonomy in prenatal screening. Bioethics. 2015;29(1):9–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jong A de, Dondorp WJ, Die-Smulders CE de, Frints SG, Wert GM de. Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues explored. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18:272–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jong A de, Dondorp WJ, Frints SGM, Die-Smulders CEM de, Wert GM de. Advances in prenatal screening: the ethical dimension. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(9):657–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gezondheidsraad. Wet bevolkingsonderzoek: prenatale screening op downsyndroom en neuralebuisdefecten. publicatienr. 2007/05WBO. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 2007.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gezondheidsraad. Prenatale screening. publicatienr. 2016/19. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 2016.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schendel RV van, Page-Christiaens GC, Beulen L, Bilardo CM, Boer MA de, Coumans ABC, et al. Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part II-women’s perspectives. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(12):1091–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oepkes D, Page-Christiaens GC, Bax CJ, Bekker MN, Bilardo CM, Boon EMJ, et al. Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part I-clinical impact. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36(12):1083–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    NIPT-Consortium. TRIDENT-2 studie. 2018. https://niptconsortium.nl/studies/. Geraadpleegd op: 17 nov 2018.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Commissie Screening erfelijke en aangeboren aandoeningen. Genetische screening. Publicatienr. 1994/22. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tweede kamer. Brief d.d. 15 september 2005 van de staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid Welzijn en Sport aan de voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. Den Haag: Ministerie van VWS; 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crombag NM, 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(1):437–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ekelund CK, Andersen HJ, Christensen J, Ersbak V, Farlie R, Henriques C, et al. Down’s syndrome risk assessment in Denmark—secondary publication. Ugeskr Laeg. 2010;172(23):1759–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ekelund CK, Jorgensen FS, Petersen OB, Sundberg K, Tabor A. Danish fetal medicine research group. Impact of a new national screening policy for down’s syndrome in Denmark: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:a2547.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ekelund CK, Petersen OB, Skibsted L, Kjaergaard S, Vogel I, Tabor A. Danish fetal medicine research group. First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 in Denmark: implications for detection and birth rates of trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(2):140–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    NHS fetal anomaly screening programme. NHS fetal anomaly screening programme annual report 2011–2012. Publication no. 2011/12. Exeter: UK National Screening Committee Programmes Directorate; 2012.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siljee JE, Schielen PCJI. Kwaliteitscontrole parameters van de Nederlandse down syndroom screening laboratoria 2011. Projectnummer 230083003/2012. Bilthoven: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu te Bilthoven; 2013.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crombag NM, Boeije H, Iedema-Kuiper R, Schielen PC, Visser GH, Bensing JM. 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. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Etchegary H, Potter B, Howley H, Cappelli M, Coyle D, Graham I, et al. The influence of experiential knowledge on prenatal screening and testing decisions. Genet Test. 2008;12(1):115–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garcia E, Timmermans DRM, Leeuwen E van. The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: searching for justification. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(3):753–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berg M van den, Timmermans DR, Kleinveld JH, Garcia E, Vugt JM van, Wal G van der. Accepting or declining the offer of prenatal screening for congenital defects: test uptake and women’s reasons. Prenat Diagn. 2005;25(1):84–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gottfredsdottir H, Bjornsdottir K, Sandall J. How do prospective parents who decline prenatal screening account for their decision? A qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(2):274–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Green JM, Hewison J, Bekker HL, Bryant LD, Cuckle HS. Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(33):1–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gitsels-van der Wal JT, Manniën J, Ghaly MM, Verhoeven PS, Hutton EK, Reinders HS. The role of religion in decision-making on antenatal screening of congenital anomalies: a qualitative study amongst Muslim Turkish origin immigrants. Midwifery. 2014;30(3):297–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gitsels-van der Wal JT, Martin L, Manniën J, Verhoeven P, Hutton EK, Reinders HS. A qualitative study on how Muslim women of Moroccan descent approach antenatal anomaly screening. Midwifery. 2015;31(3):e43–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morris JK, Mutton DE, Alberman E. Revised estimates of the maternal age specific live birth prevalence of Down’s syndrome. J Med Screen. 2002;9(1):2–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cuckle HS, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. Estimating a woman’s risk of having a pregnancy associated with Down’s syndrome using her age and serum alpha-fetoprotein level. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987;94(5):387–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Benn P, Borell A, Chiu R, Cuckle H, Dugoff L, Faas B, et al. Position statement from the aneuploidy screening committee on behalf of the board of the international society for prenatal diagnosis. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(7):622–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gezondheidsraad. Wet op het bevolkingsonderzoek: niet-invasieve prenatale test bij verhoogd risico op trisomie. Publicatienr. 2013/35. Den Haag: Gezondheidsraad; 2013.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tweede Kamer. Brief van de minister van volksgezondheid, welzijn en sport. Nr. 90 Hoofddossier prenatale screening 29 323. Den Haag: Tweede Kamer; 2014.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martin L, Van Dulmen S, Spelten E, Jonge A de, Cock P de, Hutton E. Prenatal counseling for congenital anomaly tests: parental preferences and perceptions of midwife performance. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(4):341–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gitsels-van der Wal JT, Verhoeven PS, Mannien 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin I, Hutton EK, Gitsels-van der Wal JT, Spelten ER, Kuiper F, Pereboom MTR, et al. Antenatal counseling for congenital anomaly tests: an exploratory video-observational study about client-midwife communication. Midwifery. 2015;31(1):37–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schendel RV van, Dondorp WJ, Timmermans DR, Hugte EJ van, Boer A de, Pajkrt E, et al. NIPT-based screening for Down syndrome and beyond: what do pregnant women think? Prenat Diagn. 2015;35(6):598–604.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schendel RV van, Kleinveld JH, Dondorp WJ, Pajkrt E, Timmermans DR, Holtkamp KC, et al. Attitudes of pregnant women and male partners towards non-invasive prenatal testing and widening the scope of prenatal screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(12):1345–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schendel RV van, Kater-Kuipers A, Vliet-Lachotzki EH van, Dondorp WJ, Cornel MC, Henneman L. What do parents of children with down syndrome think about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)? J Genet Couns. 2017;26(3):522–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Crnic K, Arbona AP, Baker B, Blacher J. Mothers and fathers together: contrasts in parenting across preschool to early school age in children with developmental delays. Int Rev Res Ment Retard. 2009;37:3–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McConnell D, Savage A. Stress and resilience among families caring for children with intellectual disability: expanding the research agenda. Curr Dev Disord Rep. 2015;2:100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hamlyn-Wright S, Draghi-Lorenz R, Ellis J. Locus of control fails to mediate between stress and anxiety and depression in parents of children with a developmental disorder. Autism. 2007;11:489–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hedov G, Anneren G, Wikblad K. Swedish parents of children with Down’s syndrome. Scand J Caring Sci. 2002;16:424–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Skotko BG, Levine SP, Goldstein R. Having a son or daughter with Down syndrome: perspectives from mothers and fathers. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155A(10):2335–47. Oct.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum is een imprint van Springer Media B.V., onderdeel van Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neeltje M. T. H. Crombag
    • 1
  • Linda Martin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Janneke T. Gitsels
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Divisie Vrouw en BabyUniversitair Medisch Centrum UtrechtUtrechtNederland
  2. 2.Midwifery ScienceAcademie Verloskunde Amsterdam GroningenAmsterdamNederland
  3. 3.Amsterdam Public Health onderzoeksinstituutVrije Universiteit medisch centrum AmsterdamAmsterdamNederland

Personalised recommendations