scholarly journals PATIENT EXPERIENCE WITH EXPANDED-CARRIER SCREENING: ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER COUNSELING, ECONOMIC BURDEN AND DECISION-MAKING REGARDING PARTNER TESTING

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (3) ◽  
pp. e19-e20
Author(s):  
Alice J. Shapiro ◽  
Molly M. Quinn
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Ghiossi ◽  
James D. Goldberg ◽  
Imran S. Haque ◽  
Gabriel A. Lazarin ◽  
Kenny K. Wong

ABSTRACTPurposeExpanded carrier screening (ECS) analyzes dozens or hundreds of recessive genes for determining reproductive risk. Data on clinical utility of screening conditions beyond professional guidelines is scarce.MethodsIndividuals underwent ECS for up to 110 genes. 537 at-risk couples (ARC), those in which both partners carry the same recessive disease, were invited to a retrospective IRB-approved survey of their reproductive decision making after receiving ECS results.Results64 eligible ARC completed the survey. Of 45 respondents screened preconceptionally, 62% (n=28) planned IVF with PGD or prenatal diagnosis (PNDx) in future pregnancies. 29% (n=13) were not planning to alter reproductive decisions. The remaining 9% (n=4) of responses were unclear.Of 19 pregnant respondents, 42% (n=8) elected PNDx, 11% (n=2) planned amniocentesis but miscarried, and 47% (n=9) considered the condition insufficiently severe to warrant invasive testing. Of the 8 pregnancies that underwent PNDx, 5 were unaffected and 3 were affected. 2 of 3 affected pregnancies were terminated.Disease severity was found to have significant association (p=0.000145) with changes in decision making, whereas guideline status of diseases, controlled for severity, was not (p=0.284).ConclusionMost ARC altered reproductive planning, demonstrating the clinical utility of ECS. Severity of conditions factored into decision making.


2021 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. e386
Author(s):  
Amalia Namath ◽  
Kate Devine ◽  
Jason Bromer ◽  
Jeanne E. O'Brien

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e056869
Author(s):  
Sofia Morberg Jämterud ◽  
Anke Snoek ◽  
I M van Langen ◽  
Marian Verkerk ◽  
Kristin Zeiler

ObjectiveBetween 2016 and 2017, a population-based preconception expanded carrier screening (PECS) test was developed in the Netherlands during a pilot study. It was subsequently made possible in mid-2018 for couples to ask to have such a PECS test from specially trained general practitioners (GPs). Research has described GPs as crucial in offering PECS tests, but little is known about the GPs’ views on PECS and their experiences of providing this test. This article presents a thematic analysis of the PECS practice from the perspective of GPs and a bioethical discussion of the empirical results.DesignEmpirical bioethics. A thematic analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews was conducted, and is combined with an ethical/philosophical discussion.SettingThe Netherlands.Participants7 Dutch GPs in the Netherlands, interviewed in 2019–2020.ResultsTwo themes were identified in the thematic analysis: ‘Choice and its complexity’ and ‘PECS as prompting existential concerns’. The empirical bioethics discussion showed that the first theme highlights that several areas coshape the complexity of choice on PECS, and the need for shared relational autonomous decision-making on these areas within the couple. The second theme highlights that it is not possible to analyse the existential issues raised by PECS solely on the level of the couple or family. A societal level must be included, since these levels affect each other. We refer to this as ‘entangled existential genetics’.ConclusionThe empirical bioethical analysis leads us to present two practical implications. These are: (1) training of GPs who are to offer PECS should cover shared relational autonomous decision-making within the couple and (2) more attention should be given to existential issues evoked by genetic considerations, also during the education of GPs and in bioethical discussions around PECS.


2014 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. e75
Author(s):  
J.M. Franasiak ◽  
M. Olcha ◽  
P.A. Bergh ◽  
K.H. Hong ◽  
M.D. Werner ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 1097-1101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason M. Franasiak ◽  
Meir Olcha ◽  
Paul A. Bergh ◽  
Kathleen H. Hong ◽  
Marie D. Werner ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Ivy van Dijke ◽  
Phillis Lakeman ◽  
Naoual Sabiri ◽  
Hanna Rusticus ◽  
Cecile P. E. Ottenheim ◽  
...  

AbstractPreconception carrier screening offers couples the possibility to receive information about the risk of having a child with a recessive disorder. Since 2016, an expanded carrier screening (ECS) test for 50 severe autosomal recessive disorders has been available at Amsterdam Medical Center, a Dutch university hospital. This mixed-methods study evaluated the experiences of couples that participated in the carrier screening offer, including high-risk participants, as well as participants with a general population risk. All participants received genetic counselling, and pre- (n = 132) and post-test (n = 86) questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were administered. The most important reason to have ECS was to spare a future child a life with a severe disorder (47%). The majority of survey respondents made an informed decision (86%), as assessed by the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. Among the 86 respondents, 27 individual carriers and no new carrier couples were identified. Turn-around time of the test results was considered too long and costs were perceived as too high. Overall, mean levels of anxiety were not clinically elevated. High-risk respondents (n = 89) and pregnant respondents (n = 13) experienced higher levels of anxiety before testing, which decreased after receiving the test result. Although not clinically significant, distress was on average higher for carriers compared to non-carriers (p < 0.0001). All respondents would opt for the test again, and 80.2% would recommend it to others. The results suggest that ECS should ideally be offered before pregnancy, to minimise anxiety. This study could inform current and future implementation initiatives of preconception ECS.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liya Rabkina ◽  
Amy Swanson ◽  
Sharon Aufox ◽  
Lauren Propst ◽  
Morris Fiddler ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document