TY - JOUR
T1 - Professional opinion on oral cleft during pregnancy
T2 - A comparison between Israel and the Netherlands
AU - Maarse, Wies
AU - Boonacker, Chantal W.B.
AU - Lapid, Oren
AU - Swanenburg De Veye, Henriette F.N.
AU - Weiner, Zeev
AU - Kon, Moshe
AU - van Delden, Johannes J.M.
AU - Mink van der Molen, Aebele B.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PY - 2015/6/1
Y1 - 2015/6/1
N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the opinion of obstetric care providers who perform prenatal ultrasounds to screen for anomalies and who advise women about their options, including termination of pregnancy, when an oral cleft is detected. We compared providers' opinions about pregnancy termination for isolated oral cleft in the Netherlands, where the number of terminations is low, and in Israel, where the number is high. Methods: Online questionnaires were used. The questions assessed the providers' views regarding the estimated burden of treatment, the functioning ability, and the level of happiness of children with an oral cleft and their parents. Additionally, we assessed providers' opinions on pregnancy termination for isolated oral cleft. Results: In the Netherlands, more professionals considered oral cleft a disability (rate differences 17.8%, 95% confidence interval: 0.5-33.1%) than in Israel. In the Netherlands, 10.6% of respondents (compared with 11.1% in Israel) thought that an isolated cleft was a reason for terminations of pregnancy (TOP) (rate differences 0.6%, 95% confidence interval: -12% to 10.9%). Conclusions: Prenatal care providers in the Netherlands and Israel do not differ in their opinions about the severity of oral cleft and the acceptability of TOP for an isolated oral cleft. This study shows that prenatal care providers' attitudes do therefore not explain the dramatic difference between these countries in the number of TOP for isolated oral cleft.
AB - Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the opinion of obstetric care providers who perform prenatal ultrasounds to screen for anomalies and who advise women about their options, including termination of pregnancy, when an oral cleft is detected. We compared providers' opinions about pregnancy termination for isolated oral cleft in the Netherlands, where the number of terminations is low, and in Israel, where the number is high. Methods: Online questionnaires were used. The questions assessed the providers' views regarding the estimated burden of treatment, the functioning ability, and the level of happiness of children with an oral cleft and their parents. Additionally, we assessed providers' opinions on pregnancy termination for isolated oral cleft. Results: In the Netherlands, more professionals considered oral cleft a disability (rate differences 17.8%, 95% confidence interval: 0.5-33.1%) than in Israel. In the Netherlands, 10.6% of respondents (compared with 11.1% in Israel) thought that an isolated cleft was a reason for terminations of pregnancy (TOP) (rate differences 0.6%, 95% confidence interval: -12% to 10.9%). Conclusions: Prenatal care providers in the Netherlands and Israel do not differ in their opinions about the severity of oral cleft and the acceptability of TOP for an isolated oral cleft. This study shows that prenatal care providers' attitudes do therefore not explain the dramatic difference between these countries in the number of TOP for isolated oral cleft.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930350727&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/pd.4570
DO - 10.1002/pd.4570
M3 - Article
C2 - 25641702
AN - SCOPUS:84930350727
SN - 0197-3851
VL - 35
SP - 544
EP - 548
JO - Prenatal Diagnosis
JF - Prenatal Diagnosis
IS - 6
ER -
