Country lagging in baby tests, The Australian, 5 March, 2007.
Country lagging in baby tests: [1 All-round Country Edition]
Stapleton, John. The Australian; Canberra, A.C.T. [Canberra, A.C.T] 05 Mar 2007: 3.
Abstract
"Economic analyses have shown that population-based screening probably represents value for money," the authors wrote. "When the costs of screening are offset against the lifetime costs of caring for a person with Down syndrome, screening is less costly than no screening at all."
Full Text
RURAL mothers have a far higher risk of having a baby with Down syndrome than women in cities, due to the lack of thorough antenatal screening.
A study by the University of Queensland and Queensland Health, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia, looked at the mother's place of residence and type of antenatal care for all Down syndrome births in Queensland since 2000. The authors concluded that there had been a dramatic 15 per cent fall in the rate of Down syndrome births to mothers who lived in urban areas, but not in rural areas.
Apart from maternal age, there are no known risk factors for Down syndrome and the falls in urban areas have come despite an increasing number of older women giving birth.
The authors -- doctors Michael Coory and Heidi Carroll and researcher Timothy Soselli -- concluded that one of the factors leading to country mothers having a 34 per cent higher risk of having Down syndrome babies was access to screening.
This was reinforced by statistics showing the incidence of Down syndrome was 56 per cent higher for mothers in the public hospital system than those treated by a private obstetrician, presumably because higher income gave access to better-quality testing.
Several expert groups have recommended population-based Down syndrome screening -- that is, screening for all expectant mothers regardless of age.
High-quality ultrasound testing is confined to urban areas, but rural women can be screened using an antenatal blood test.
"Economic analyses have shown that population-based screening probably represents value for money," the authors wrote. "When the costs of screening are offset against the lifetime costs of caring for a person with Down syndrome, screening is less costly than no screening at all."