Contribution of registries to the decision process in public health : The example of trisomy 21;Apport des registres à la décision en santé publique : L'exemple de la trisomie 21

Revue d'Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique

Volumn 44, Issue SUPPL. 1, 1996, Pages

  Ayme S ^a,b  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b Registre Malformations B   (France)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Prenatal diagnosis; Prenatal screening; Prevalence; Public health Decision process; Regisiry; Trisomy 21

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; FRANCE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PREVALENCE; REGISTRATION; TRISOMY 21; ADULT; ARTICLE; DOWN SYNDROME; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HIGH RISK PREGNANCY; HUMAN; MATERNAL AGE; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; REGISTER;

ADULT; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMANS; MATERNAL AGE; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY, HIGH-RISK; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; REGISTRIES;

EID: 0029978186     PISSN: 03987620     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Aymé S, Julian C, Stoll C, Dott B, Dufouil C, Goujard J. Impact du diagnostic prénatal sur la prévalence des anomalies chromosomiques à la naissance. In : Recherche et Politique de Santé : l'apport des registres de morbidité. Eds INSERM/DGS, Collection Analyse et Prospective, pp219-224, 1992.
2. Cornel MC, Breed ASPM, Beekhuis JR , Meerman GJ, Kate LP. Down syndrome : effects of demographic factors and prenatal diagnosis on the future livebirth prevalence. Hum Genet 1993 ; 92 : 163-8.
3. Julian-Reynier C, Macquart-Moulin G, Moatti J-P et al. Attitudes of women of childbearing age towards prenatal diagnosis in southeastern France. Prenat Diagn 1993 ; 13 : 613-27.
4. Cornel MC and the EUROCAT working group. Variation in prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis : policies in 13 european countries 1989-1991. Prenat Diagn 1994 ; 14 : 337-44.
5. Reid M. The diffusion of four prenatal screening tests across Europe. King's Fund Centre, 1991, 134 pages.
6. Haddow JE, Palomaki GE, Knight GJ, Cunnigham GC, Lustig LS, Boyd PA. Reducing the need for amniocentesis in women 35 years of age or older with serum markers for screening. New Engl J Med 1994 ; 330 : 1114-8.
7. Moatti J-P, Le Galès C, Julian C, Lanoë J-L, Aymé S. Analyse coût-bénéfice du diagnostic prénatal des anomalies chromosomiques par amniocentèse. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publ 1990 ; 38 : 309-21.
8. Moatti JP, Le Galès C, Julian C, Durbec JP, Mattei JPF, Aymé S. Socio-cultural inequalities in access to prenatal diagnosis: the role of insurance coverage and regulatory policies. Prenat Diagn 1990 ; 10 : 313-25.
9. Dolk H, Goyens S, Lechat MF (eds). Description of EUROCAT registries, 1979-90. Commission of the European Communities-Medicine Series 1991 ; EUR 13615.
10. Julian-Reynier C, Macquart-Moulin G, Moatti J-P, Aurran Y, Chabal F, Aymé S. Reasons for women's non-uptake of amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 1994 ; 14 :859-64.
11. Julian-Reynier C, Aurran Y, Dumaret A et al. Attitudes toward Down syndrome : Follow-up of a cohort study of 280 cases. J Med Genet 1995 ; 32 : 597-99.
12. Dumaret A, Rosset DJ. Trisomie 21 et abandon. Arch Fr Pediatr 1993 ; 50 : 851-7.