Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • harvard-anglia-ruskin-university
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Preferences for aspects of antenatal and newborn screening: a systematic review
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
The Swedish Red Cross University College.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2626-2335
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
2019 (English)In: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, ISSN 1471-2393, E-ISSN 1471-2393, Vol. 19, no 1, article id 131Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Many countries offer screening programmes to unborn and newborn babies (antenatal and newborn screening) to identify those at risk of certain conditions to aid earlier diagnosis and treatment. Technological advances have stimulated the development of screening programmes to include more conditions, subsequently changing the information required and potential benefit-risk trade-offs driving participation. Quantifying preferences for screening programmes can provide programme commissioners with data to understand potential demand, the drivers of this demand, information provision required to support the programmes and the extent to which preferences differ in a population. This study aimed to identify published studies eliciting preferences for antenatal and newborn screening programmes and provide an overview of key methods and findings.

METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases for key terms identified eligible studies (discrete choice experiments (DCEs) or best-worst scaling (BWS) studies related to antenatal/newborn testing/screening published between 1990 and October 2018). Data were systematically extracted, tabulated and summarised in a narrative review.

RESULTS: A total of 19 studies using a DCE or BWS to elicit preferences for antenatal (n = 15; 79%) and newborn screening (n = 4; 21%) programmes were identified. Most of the studies were conducted in Europe (n = 12; 63%) but there were some examples from North America (n = 2; 11%) and Australia (n = 2; 11%). Attributes most commonly included were accuracy of screening (n = 15; 79%) and when screening occurred (n = 13; 68%). Other commonly occurring attributes included information content (n = 11; 58%) and risk of miscarriage (n = 10; 53%). Pregnant women (n = 11; 58%) and healthcare professionals (n = 11; 58%) were the most common study samples. Ten studies (53%) compared preferences across different respondents. Two studies (11%) made comparisons between countries. The most popular analytical model was a standard conditional logit model (n = 11; 58%) and one study investigated preference heterogeneity with latent class analysis.

CONCLUSION: There is an existing literature identifying stated preferences for antenatal and newborn screening but the incorporation of more sophisticated design and analytical methods to investigate preference heterogeneity could extend the relevance of the findings to inform commissioning of new screening programmes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 19, no 1, article id 131
Keywords [en]
Antenatal, Best-worst scaling, Discrete choice experiment, Newborn, Preferences, Screening, Systematic review
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:rkh:diva-2802DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2278-7PubMedID: 30991967OAI: oai:DiVA.org:rkh-2802DiVA, id: diva2:1307090
Available from: 2019-04-25 Created: 2019-04-25 Last updated: 2019-06-18Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedPMC Full text

Authority records BETA

Georgsson, Susanne

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Georgsson, Susanne
By organisation
The Swedish Red Cross University College
In the same journal
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 7 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • harvard-anglia-ruskin-university
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf