Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:54:06.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Screening for fetal abnormalities: From a health technology assessment report to a national statute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

Ilona Autti-Rämö  and
Marjukka Mäkelä
Ilona Autti-Rämö
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Care Technology Assessment (Finohta), STAKES
Marjukka Mäkelä
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Care Technology Assessment (Finohta), STAKES and University of Copenhagen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Previously in Finland, each municipality selected which methods to use in screening for fetal abnormalities. This resulted in practice variation and inequity. The national health technology assessment (HTA) office Finohta compared the methods and time frames available when screening for chromosomal and structural abnormalities. The assessment identified a need to discuss several value-laden questions before policy decisions could be taken.

Methods: The National Screening Committee (NSC) at the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (MOH) formulated a statement based on the HTA report to inform policy makers. This article describes the steps in the policy process.

Results: The national screening committee organized an open forum to discuss the ethically relevant aspects of fetal screening, and a lengthy public discussion highlighted the viewpoints of various stakeholders. Based on the assessment, public discussion, and several committee meetings that heard further experts, the NSC formulated a conclusion based on equity of access. This also offered options for families unwilling to terminate a pregnancy due to fetal abnormality. The MOH sent the conclusion to a comment round, and the proposal was accepted with minor adjustments. The Ministry decided to unify the regulation of all public screening programs by one statute. The policy process lasted three years, and the methods to screen for fetal abnormalities will be unified after a further 3 years.

Conclusions: The assessment of screening programs for fetal abnormalities reached beyond its original mandate. The process of examining values behind screening resulted in a program that respects the differing objectives and ethical values of pregnant families, and to national legislation on screening programs.

Keywords

ScreeningHealth policyPrenatalPregnancyFetusChromosomal abnormalitiesMalformation
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 436 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Autti-Rämö, I, Koskinen, H, Mäkelä, M, Ritvanen, A, and working group. Maternal ultrasound and serum screening in the detection structural and chromosomal abnormalities (in Finnish). FinOHTA report 27. 2006. Available at: http://finohta.stakes.fi.Google Scholar
2.Autti-Rämö, I, Mäkelä, M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports. An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:1–8.Google Scholar
3.Autti-Rämö, I, Mäkelä, M, Sintonen, H, et al. Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: An analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision making in Finland. Acta Paediatr. 2005;94:1126–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Bettelheim, D, Kolinek, B, Schaller, A, Bernaschek, G. Complication rates of invasive intrauterine procedures in a centre for prenatal diagnosis and therapy (In German). Ultraschall Med. 2002;23:119–122.Google Scholar
5.Bricker, L, Garcia, J, Henderson, J, et al. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–193.Google Scholar
6.Connor, JM, Ferguson-Smith, MA. Essential medical genetics. 4th ed. Cambridge: The University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
7.Cuckle, HS, Wald, NJ, Lindenbaum, RH. Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein measurement: A screening test for Down syndrome. Lancet. 1984;1:926–929.Google Scholar
8.Grandjean, H, Larroque, D, Levi, S. Sensitivity of routine ultrasound screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus database. The Eurofetus Team. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;847:118–124.Google Scholar
9.Grandjean, H, Larroque, D, Levi, S. The performance of routine ultrasound screening in the Eurofetus database. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Ritchie, K, Boynton, J, Bradbury, I, et al. Routine ultrasound scanning before 24 week of pregnancy. Report No. 5. Glasgow: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland; 2004.Google Scholar
12.Terho, A.Quality criteria and regional differences in trisomy screening in Finland. (In Finnish). Oulu: Oulun Yliopisto; 2002.Google Scholar
13.Wald, NJ, Rodeck, C, Hacshaw, AK, Walters, J, Chitty, L, Mackinson, A. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: The results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–88.Google Scholar