Interest in and uptake of genetic counseling for preconception carrier screening when offered to predominantly white reproductive-age persons seeking gynecologic care at a single U.S. academic medical center

Multilevel barriers and facilitators to widespread use of preconception carrier screening in the United States

PURPOSE

Although preconception reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) is preferred to screening during pregnancy, population-wide preconception screening is not routinely performed in the United States. We explored the multilevel barriers to the widespread adoption of preconception RGCS in the United States via key informant interviews.

METHODS

Semi-structured virtual video interviews were conducted with 29 informants with a breadth of professional expertise between May and October 2022. Data collection and qualitative analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and socioecological model. Analysis focused on identifying barriers to delivering preconception RGCS at and across different levels of health care and exploring potential facilitators of preconception RGCS delivery.

RESULTS

Barriers to preconception RGCS were identified at the levels of test characteristics, patients and couples, clinicians and care teams, and the external health care and policy environments. Across the different levels of care delivery, 3 themes of barriers emerged: (1) fragmentation and inconsistencies hinder care delivery, (2) gaps in knowledge, misconceptions, and uncertainties about RGCS are pervasive, and (3) expanding preconception RGCS in the diverse US population presents unique implementation challenges. Potential solutions were detailed by informants.

CONCLUSION

Identifying individual and thematic barriers to preconception RGCS delivery may help to define strategies to alleviate obstacles.

Experiences of cystic fibrosis newborn screening and genetic counseling

The South Carolina cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) program changed in 2019 to include CFTR genotyping for babies with top 4% immunoreactive trypsinogen, which improves sensitivity and timeliness but increases carrier detection. Carrier identification has genetic implications for the family and parents of NBS+ babies have increased emotional distress. Genetic counseling (GC) may increase parent understanding and reduce anxiety yet is not uniformly offered at CF centers. We report our early results after implementing GC for NBS+ families at the time of sweat chloride testing based on GC availability, which resulted in an unselected GC- control arm. Sixteen mothers (GC+ = 9, GC- = 7) participated in an online survey about their experience. Responses were analyzed in aggregate and for differences between GC+ and GC- groups. All-respondent sadness and anxiety increased with notification of the NBS+ result and decreased after sweat test results. Anxiety and sadness were greater in GC- compared to GC+ until after the diagnosis was resolved, though emotional differences between the groups were not statistically significant. On a scale of 0 = not at all to 10 = extremely, GC was rated very helpful (mean 9.0, range 5-10), informative (mean 8.9, range 4-10), comforting (mean 9.1, range 6-10), and minimally distracting (mean 1.8, range 0-9). All participants correctly identified that a risk for a child to have CF exists when both parents are (at least) carriers. Delivery of NBS results to respondents varied by timing, informant, and information given. The child's pediatrician notified 10 (62.5%) of the NBS+ result. Parents felt they were notified in a timely manner (68.8%), by someone knowledgeable about NBS (62.5%), the sweat test (62.5%), CF (43.8%), and genetics (43.8%) and who cared about them (81.3%). Parents felt worried (81.3%), confused (81.3%), empowered (25%), and other (sad, shocked, scared, overwhelmed, devastated, defeated). Data from this single-center study suggest benefit of GC, that families would value earlier contact with an expert, and that prompt diagnostic resolution may reduce duration of parental distress.

Expanded carrier screening for reproductive risk assessment: An evidence-based practice guideline from the National Society of Genetic Counselors

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) intends to broadly screen healthy individuals to determine their reproductive chance for autosomal recessive (AR) and X-linked (XL) conditions with infantile or early-childhood onset, which may impact reproductive management (Committee Opinion 690, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2017, 129, e35). Compared to ethnicity-based screening, which requires accurate knowledge of ancestry for optimal test selection and appropriate risk assessment, ECS panels consist of tens to hundreds of AR and XL conditions that may be individually rare in various ancestries but offer a comprehensive approach to inherited disease screening. As such, the term "equitable carrier screening" may be preferable. This practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for ECS using the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework (Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 995; Guyatt et al., BMJ, 2008, 336, 924). We used evidence from a recent systematic evidence review (Ramdaney et al., Genetics in Medicine, 2022, 20, 374) and compiled data from peer-reviewed literature, scientific meetings, and clinical experience. We defined and prioritized the outcomes of informed consent, change in reproductive plans, yield in identification of at-risk carrier pairs/pregnancies, perceived barriers to ECS, amount of provider time spent, healthcare costs, frequency of severely/profoundly affected offspring, incidental findings, uncertain findings, patient satisfaction, and provider attitudes. Despite the recognized barriers to implementation and change in management strategies, this analysis supported implementation of ECS for these outcomes. Based upon the current level of evidence, we recommend ECS be made available for all individuals considering reproduction and all pregnant reproductive pairs, as ECS presents an ethnicity-based carrier screening alternative which does not rely on race-based medicine. The final decision to pursue carrier screening should be directed by shared decision-making, which takes into account specific features of patients as well as their preferences and values. As a periconceptional reproductive risk assessment tool, ECS is superior compared to ethnicity-based carrier screening in that it both identifies more carriers of AR and XL conditions as well as eliminates a single race-based medical practice. ECS should be offered to all who are currently pregnant, considering pregnancy, or might otherwise biologically contribute to pregnancy. Barriers to the broad implementation of and access to ECS should be identified and addressed so that test performance for carrier screening will not depend on social constructs such as race.

Genetic Counselling Needs for Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: A Scoping Review

Reproductive genetic carrier screening provides individuals and couples with information regarding their risk of having a child affected by an autosomal recessive or X-linked recessive genetic condition. This information allows them the opportunity to make reproductive decisions in line with their own beliefs and values. Traditionally, carrier screening has been accessed by family members of affected individuals. In recent years, improvements to accessibility and updates to recommendations suggest that all women planning or in early pregnancy should be offered reproductive genetic carrier screening. As uptake moves towards the population scale, how can the genetic counselling needs of such large-scale screening be met? A scoping review of the literature was performed to ascertain what the genetic counselling needs of reproductive genetic carrier screening are, and what future research is needed. Four broad themes were identified in the existing literature: (1) The offer-when and in what context to offer screening; (2) Information-the importance of and what to include in education, and pre- and post-test counselling; (3) Who and how-who the genetic counselling is performed by and how; (4) Personalization-how do we find the balance between standardized and individualized approaches? Based on the existing literature, we present a set of recommendations for consideration in implementing population-scale reproductive genetic carrier screening as well as suggested areas for future research.

Reasons affecting the uptake of reproductive genetic carrier screening among nonpregnant reproductive-aged women in Flanders (Belgium)

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows to identify couples who have an increased likelihood of conceiving a child affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked monogenic condition. Multiple studies have reported on a wide and fragmented set of reasons to accept or decline RGCS. Only a few studies have been performed to assess the uptake of RGCS. Nonpregnant women visiting their gynecologist were invited to complete a questionnaire assessing perceived susceptibility, the acceptability of offering RGCS, attitudes, the intention to participate in RGCS, reasons to accept or decline RGCS, and sociodemographic characteristics. Women who showed the intention to have RGCS were asked to consider a free RGCS offer. Most women (n = 127) were between 25 and 34 years old (60%), in a relationship (91%), and wanted to have children (65%). Study participants had positive attitudes towards RGCS and the intention to consider RGCS in the future. Reasons to accept RGCS were being able to share genetic information with children or relatives (n = 104/127, 82%), to prevent the birth of a child affected with a hereditary condition (n = 103/127, 81%), and/or to know the chance of conceiving a child with a hereditary condition (n = 102/127, 80%). Reasons for declining RGCS were the possible concerns that could arise when receiving test results (n = 27/127, 21%), having no family history of hereditary disorders (n = 19/127, 15%), and not wanting to take action based on test results (n = 13/127, 10%). Among test intenders that met the inclusion criteria, 53% decided to participate in RGCS together with their male reproductive partner. More in-depth research on the decision-making process behind the choice to accept or decline an RGCS offer would be highly valuable to make sure couples are making informed reproductive choices.