Socioeconomic Disparities in Diagnostic Testing after Positive Aneuploidy Screening

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the association between type of health insurance (Medicaid vs. private) and uptake of diagnostic testing for fetal aneuploidy after a positive screening test result.

Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of pregnant women who underwent aneuploidy screening in the first and/or second trimesters of pregnancy and received positive results. The characteristics of and outcomes for women with Medicaid were compared with those of women with private insurance in both univariable and multivariable analyses.

Results In this study, 75 women with Medicaid and 75 with private insurance were analyzed. Those with Medicaid were younger (33.8 vs. 36.9 years, p < 0.01), and more likely to be of non-white race/ethnicity (88 vs. 27%, p < 0.01), unmarried (65 vs. 19%, p < 0.01), non-English speaking (12 vs. 0%, p < 0.01), and multiparous (76 vs. 59%, p = 0.02). They also were less likely to undergo diagnostic testing after a positive aneuploidy screen (35 vs. 57%, p < 0.01). In multivariable analysis, those with Medicaid remained significantly less likely to undergo diagnostic testing (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.09–0.80).

Conclusion Women with Medicaid are less likely than women with private insurance to undergo diagnostic testing after positive screening for aneuploidy. These results emphasize the potential importance of improved counseling for low-income women.

Keywords

prenatal diagnosis - socioeconomic disparities - aneuploidy - screening

• References

• 1 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (1) 217-227
• 2 de Graaf IM, Tijmstra T, Bleker OP, van Lith JM. Womens' preference in Down syndrome screening. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22 (7) 624-629
• 3 Santalahti P, Aro AR, Hemminki E, Helenius H, Ryynänen M. On what grounds do women participate in prenatal screening?. Prenat Diagn 1998; 18 (2) 153-165
• 4 Mulvey S, Wallace EM. Women's knowledge of and attitudes to first and second trimester screening for Down's syndrome. BJOG 2000; 107 (10) 1302-1305
• 5 van den Berg M, Timmermans DR, Knol DL , et al. Understanding pregnant women's decision making concerning prenatal screening. Health Psychol 2008; 27 (4) 430-437
• 6 St-Jacques S, Grenier S, Charland M, Forest JC, Rousseau F, Légaré F. Decisional needs assessment regarding Down syndrome prenatal testing: a systematic review of the perceptions of women, their partners and health professionals. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28 (13) 1183-1203
• 7 Reid B, Sinclair M, Barr O, Dobbs F, Crealey G. A meta-synthesis of pregnant women's decision-making processes with regard to antenatal screening for Down syndrome. Soc Sci Med 2009; 69 (11) 1561-1573
• 8 Weinans MJ, Huijssoon AM, Tymstra T, Gerrits MC, Beekhuis JR, Mantingh A. How women deal with the results of serum screening for Down syndrome in the second trimester of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 2000; 20 (9) 705-708
• 9 Kobelka C, Mattman A, Langlois S. An evaluation of the decision-making process regarding amniocentesis following a screen-positive maternal serum screen result. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29 (5) 514-519
• 10 Marini T, Sullivan J, Naeem R. Decisions about amniocentesis by advanced maternal age patients following maternal serum screening may not always correlate clinically with screening results: need for improvement in informed consent process. Am J Med Genet 2002; 109 (3) 171-175
• 11 Mueller VM, Huang T, Summers AM, Winsor SH. The influence of risk estimates obtained from maternal serum screening on amniocentesis rates. Prenat Diagn 2005; 25 (13) 1253-1257
• 12 van Landingham S, Bienstock J, Wood Denne E, Hueppchen N. Beyond the first trimester screen: can we predict who will choose invasive testing?. Genet Med 2011; 13 (6) 539-544
• 13 Julian-Reynier C, Macquart-Moulin G, Moatti JP, Aurran Y, Chabal F, Aymé S. Reasons for women's non-uptake of amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 1994; 14 (9) 859-864
• 14 Jaques AM, Collins VR, Muggli EE , et al. Uptake of prenatal diagnostic testing and the effectiveness of prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2010; 30 (6) 522-530
• 15 Smith DK, Shaw RW, Marteau TM. Informed consent to undergo serum screening for Down's syndrome: the gap between policy and practice. BMJ 1994; 309 (6957) 776
• 16 Goel V, Glazier R, Holzapfel S, Pugh P, Summers A. Evaluating patient's knowledge of maternal serum screening. Prenat Diagn 1996; 16 (5) 425-430
• 17 Gekas J, Gondry J, Mazur S, Cesbron P, Thepot F. Informed consent to serum screening for Down syndrome: are women given adequate information?. Prenat Diagn 1999; 19 (1) 1-7
• 18 Marteau TM, Dormandy E. Facilitating informed choice in prenatal testing: how well are we doing?. Am J Med Genet 2001; 106 (3) 185-190
• 19 Nsiah-Jefferson L. Access to reproductive genetic services for low-income women and women of color. Fetal Diagn Ther 1993; 8 (Suppl. 01) 107-127
• 20 Martin LT, Parker RM. Insurance expansion and health literacy. JAMA 2011; 306 (8) 874-875
• 21 Cho RN, Plunkett BA, Wolf MS, Simon CE, Grobman WA. Health literacy and patient understanding of screening tests for aneuploidy and neural tube defects. Prenat Diagn 2007; 27 (5) 463-467
• 22 Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau TM. Low uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in minority ethnic groups and socially deprived groups: a reflection of women's attitudes or a failure to facilitate informed choices?. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34 (2) 346-352
• 23 Rowe R, Puddicombe D, Hockley C, Redshaw M. Offer and uptake of prenatal screening for Down syndrome in women from different social and ethnic backgrounds. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28 (13) 1245-1250
• 24 Khoshnood B, Blondel B, de Vigan C, Bréart G. Socioeconomic barriers to informed decision making regarding maternal serum screening for Down syndrome: results of the French National Perinatal Survey of 1998. Am J Public Health 2004; 94 (3) 484-491