Coping with serum screening for Down syndrome when the results is given as a numeric value

Does screening for Down's syndrome cause anxiety in pregnant women? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prenatal screening for Down's syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities is included in prenatal care programs in many countries. However, the potential association between prenatal screening and maternal anxiety remains an issue of debate.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and summarize the current scientific evidence on whether screening for Down's syndrome might cause anxiety in pregnant women with a negative or a false-positive screening result.

METHODS

Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, PsychInfo and Cochrane) were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials or cohort studies comparing screening and no screening, or comparing different types of screening for Down's syndrome. The search was limited to studies published between September 2001 and April 2013. In all, 316 studies were identified through search of databases and 40 were included for full-text assessment. Two observers independently screened the articles and seven studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. They were subsequently assessed for risk of bias and level of evidence.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quantitative measurements of maternal anxiety or worry.

RESULTS

Two studies compared anxiety in pregnant women who accepted or declined screening and showed no difference between groups. All studies described a decrease in anxiety following a screen-negative result. Four studies reported that women's anxiety levels increased significantly upon receiving a screen-positive result. However, after a normal diagnostic result, anxiety levels declined to the same level as for screen-negative women.

CONCLUSION

Studies using quantitative, validated measures to estimate anxiety showed no association between screening and residual anxiety.

Antenatal telephone support intervention with and without uterine artery Doppler screening for low risk nulliparous women: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The number of routine antenatal visits provided to low risk nulliparous women has been reduced in the UK, acknowledging this change in care may result in women being less satisfied with their care and having poorer psychosocial outcomes. The primary aim of the study was to investigate whether the provision of proactive telephone support intervention (TSI) with and without uterine artery Doppler screening (UADS) would reduce the total number of antenatal visits required. A secondary aim was to investigate whether the interventions affected psychological outcomes.

METHODS

A three-arm randomised controlled trial involving 840 low risk nulliparous women was conducted at a large maternity unit in North East England. All women received antenatal care in line with current UK guidance. Women in the TSI group (T) received calls from a midwife at 28, 33 and 36 weeks and women in the telephone and Doppler group (T + D) received the TSI and additional UADS at 20 weeks' gestation. The main outcome measure was the total number of scheduled and unscheduled antenatal visits received after 20 weeks' gestation.

RESULTS

The median number of unscheduled (n = 2.0), scheduled visits (n = 7.0) and mean number of total visits (n = 8.8) were similar in the three groups. The majority (67%) of additional antenatal visits were made to a Maternity Assessment Unit because of commonly occurring pregnancy complications. Additional TSI+/-UADS was not associated with differences in clinical outcomes, levels of anxiety, social support or satisfaction with care. There were challenges to the successful delivery of the telephone support intervention; 59% of women were contacted at 29 and 33 weeks gestation reducing to 52% of women at 37 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of additional telephone support (with or without UADS) in low risk nulliparous women did not reduce the number of unscheduled antenatal visits or reduce anxiety. This study provides a useful insight into the reasons why this client group attend for unscheduled visits.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN62354584.

'Let's have it tested first': choice and circumstances in decision-making following positive antenatal screening in Hong Kong

There now exists a considerable body of sociological work examining antenatal screening for fetal abnormalities. A common theme emerging from this literature is that pregnant women report not feeling able to exercise choice freely, experiencing constraints both from medical professionals and their perceived expectations of the sociocultures in which they live. This study adds to existing literature in three ways. Firstly, in contrast to the existing body of interview-based research, the study uses video recordings of actual consultations, in order to capture the interactional processes through which choice and constraints are established, negotiated and contested. Secondly, it explores the next stage in the process of antenatal screening, by focusing on women who are offered invasive diagnostic testing as a result of 'high risk' screening results, and who have been the subject of little research. Thirdly, the study site in Hong Kong provides a particularly interesting location, given limited research on antenatal screening in that part of the world, and Hong Kong's cosmopolitan environment that is reflected in the diversity of client population undergoing antenatal screening. Using conversation analysis we examine how aspects of the clients' diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and circumstances are interactionally managed in this setting, and how this might impact on decision-making.

Different communication strategies for disclosing results of diagnostic prenatal testing

BACKGROUND

Any screening program aiming to reassure pregnant women that their unborn baby is healthy will cause anxiety while waiting for the test results.

OBJECTIVES

1) To determine if revealing amniocentesis or chorionic villous sampling (CVS) results on a fixed date alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period, compared with a policy of revealing the result "when available" (i.e. variable date). 2) To evaluate whether issuing early results from a rapid molecular test alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period. 3) To evaluate whether different methods of communication (telephone, fax, email, face to face) have any impact on the parents' satisfaction and anxiety levels.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised trials, in which methods of issuing prenatal test results are compared.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (Faris Mujezinovic and Zarko Alfirevic) assessed eligibility and trial quality and performed data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies (involving 286 women) from amniocentesis (but none from CVS) compared the impact of communicating results of rapid testing with waiting for definitive karyotype. Unfortunately, it was not possible to perform pooled analysis because one study reported only median (interquartile range) data, presumably because the data were not normally distributed.One study reported a statistically significant reduction in the average anxiety during the waiting period for women who had had a rapid test compared with those who had not (mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -3.08 to - 1.52). The other study compared median (interquartile range) for the trait- and state-anxiety scores and found no difference between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no conclusive evidence that, while waiting for the full karyotype following amniocentesis, issuing results from a rapid analysis reduces maternal anxiety. The limited evidence from the two trials included in this review does not help resolve the dilemma about whether full karyotyping should be abandoned in favour of limited rapid testing for women undergoing Down's syndrome screening. This choice will rest on clinical arguments and cost-effectiveness rather than impact on anxiety.There is also no evidence to support the view that issuing amniocentesis results as soon as they are available is more user friendly than using a pre-defined fixed date. Studies evaluating the effect of different strategies for disclosing results on women anxiety for CVS are needed.

Nuchal translucency screening and anxiety levels in pregnancy and puerperium

OBJECTIVES

To compare levels of anxiety and depression during pregnancy and puerperium between women who are offered nuchal translucency (NT) screening routinely and those who are not, and to compare levels between women accepting and those declining screening.

METHODS

In 12 midwife practices in three different health districts an experimental NT screening program was offered to pregnant women between 1 June 1999 and 1 January 2001. As part of this implementation study, questionnaires including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were completed: after the patient was informed but before screening (T1), at 20 weeks of gestation (T2), and 6 weeks after delivery (T3). A control group of women receiving routine prenatal care (i.e. no screening offered) also completed the HADS questionnaire at 12 and 20 weeks and after delivery.

RESULTS

Five hundred and twenty-seven questionnaires were analyzed. There was a screening uptake of 87% in the intervention group (i.e. those offered screening). Women in this group differed significantly in the percentage of previous miscarriages and religious background compared with the control group. We adjusted for these differences in the analysis. There were no significant differences in HADS scores between the intervention and the control groups at T1, suggesting that women receiving information on screening were not more anxious compared with women who were not informed. Women who were offered screening (acceptors as well as decliners) had significantly lower HADS levels at 20 weeks and after delivery. There were no demographic differences between women accepting and those declining screening.

CONCLUSION

Informing women and offering them NT screening for Down syndrome does not increase anxiety or depression levels in pregnancy. In fact, women undergoing or declining screening seem less anxious compared with those who are not offered screening. It is possible that informing women and offering them the chance to decide autonomously whether to participate in screening reduces anxiety levels.

Participation in maternal marker screening for Down syndrome: contribution of the information delivered to the decision-making process

OBJECTIVE

In France, health care providers now have to fulfill two requirements before serum marker screening for Down syndrome can be carried out: provide a written statement confirming that they informed the pregnant woman about the test and obtain the woman's written consent. A survey was designed to assess: (1) women's opinion on the explanations they received when the screening test was offered and when test results were given, and (2) the decisions women planned to make in light of the test results (i.e. to carry out amniocentesis or not).

METHODS

The survey was intended for all French pregnant women who underwent the serum marker screening test during the first week of October 1998. The questionnaire was sent to women via clinical laboratories (3,825 questionnaires were sent to the 54 laboratories authorized for Down syndrome screening in France). Besides chi(2) tests and tests of comparisons of paired proportions, we conducted a hierarchical clustering analysis and qualitatively analyzed the free comments provided by women.

RESULTS

The response rate was 39% (n = 1,473). Explanations given by the provider at the time the test was offered were not clear and ample enough for 38.8% of women. Furthermore, 45.9% of women stated the same opinion about the explanations provided with the test results. Based on the test results, amniocentesis was recommended to 125 high-risk women; 20.8% of them were going to decline the offer or had not yet decided. Among low-risk women, 13% requested amniocentesis or had not yet decided. The opinion of these high- or low-risk women on the clarity and ampleness of the explanations provided with the test results was similar to that of high-risk women who wished to carry out amniocentesis. The hierarchical clustering analysis led us to identify clusters of women who mainly differed according to their opinion (anxious or reassured) on the explanations provided, regardless of their risk (high or low).

CONCLUSION

Women's decision regarding screening for Down syndrome requires them to promptly integrate complex information on what the test is and entails. The question is then raised as to the type of information that is actually disclosed or that could be disclosed, based on how women value its contribution to decision-making.