Author:
Mayer Johanna,Brandstetter Susanne,Tischer Christina,Seelbach-Göbel Birgit,Malfertheiner Sara Fill,Melter Michael,Kabesch Michael,Apfelbacher Christian,Arndt Petra,Baessler Andrea,Berneburg Mark,Böse- O’Reilly Stephan,Brunner Romuald,Buchalla Wolfgang,Malfertheiner Sara Fill,Franke Andre,Häusler Sebastian,Heid Iris,Herr Caroline,Högler Wolfgang,Kerzel Sebastian,Koller Michael,Leitzmann Michael,Rothfuß David,Rösch Wolfgang,Schaub Bianca,Weber Bernhard H. F.,Weidinger Stephan,Wellmann Sven,
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Appropriate health system utilisation during pregnancy is fundamental for maintaining maternal and child’s health. To study the use and determinants of supplementary prenatal screening and diagnostics in Germany this study provides comprehensive data.
Methods
We obtained data from a recently established prospective German birth cohort study, the KUNO Kids Health Study. Analyses are based on Andersen’s Behavioural Model of health system use, which distinguishes between predisposing (e.g. country of birth), enabling (e.g. health insurance) and need factors (e.g. at-risk pregnancy). We examined bi- and multivariate association with the use of supplementary prenatal screening and diagnostics using logistic regression.
Results
The study has a sample size of 1886 participating mothers. One fifth of the mothers investigated did not use any supplementary prenatal screening or diagnostics. Notably, the chance of using supplementary prenatal screening and diagnostics more than doubled if the pregnant woman had a private health insurance (OR 2.336; 95% CI 1.527–3.573). Higher maternal age (OR 1.038; 95% CI 1.006–1.071) and environmental tobacco smoke exposure (OR 1.465 95% CI 1.071–2.004) increased the use of supplementary prenatal screening and diagnostics. However, regarding need factors only having an at-risk-pregnancy (OR 1.688; 95% CI 1.271–2.241) showed an independent association.
Conclusion
The important role of the type of health insurance and the relatively small influence of need factors was surprising. Especially with respect to equity in accessing health care, this needs further attention.
Funder
research grants of the EU
German Federal Ministry for Education and Researc
University Children’s Hospital of the University of Regensburg
Clinic “St. Hedwig”
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Reference48 articles.
1. Schäfers R, Kolip P. Gesundheitsmonitor: Zusatzangebote in der Schwangerschaft: Sichere Rundumversorgung oder Geschäft mit der Unsicherheit? 2015. p. 1–16.
2. Abalos E, Chamillard M, Diaz V, Tuncalp Ӧ, Gülmezoglu AM. Antenatal care for healthy pregnant women: A mapping of interventions from existing guidelines to inform the development of new WHO guidance on antenatal care. BJOG. 2016;123:519–28.
3. Kapaya H, Mercer E, Boffey F, Jones G, Mitchell C, Anumba D. Deprivation and poor psychosocial support are key determinants of late antenatal presentation and poor fetal outcomes--a combined retrospective and prospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015.
4. Mainz HW. des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschussesüber die ärztliche Betreuungwährend der Schwangerschaftund nach der Entbindung(“Mutterschafts-Richtlinien”): in der Fassung vom 10. Dezember 1985 (veröffentlicht im Bundesanzeiger Nr. 60 a vom 27. März 1986) zuletzt geändert am 20. August 2020 veröffentlicht im Bundesanzeiger AT 23.11.2020 B3 in Kraft getreten am 24. 2020. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-2301/Mu-RL_2020-08-20_iK-2020-11-24.pdf.
5. Kolleck A, Sauter A. Aktueller Stand und Entwicklungen der Pränataldiagnostik: Endbericht zum Monitoring TAB Arbeitsbericht Nr 184. 2019 [cited 2020 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/de/pdf/publikationen/berichte/TAB-Arbeitsbericht-ab184.pdf