Parental Narratives About Genetic Testing for Hearing Loss: A One Year Follow Up Study

Personal utility of genomic sequencing for infants with congenital deafness

Decisions about genetic testing have traditionally been based on clinical utility and cost, but personal utility is increasingly recognized when assessing the value of testing. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was offered to a population cohort of 106 infants diagnosed with congenital hearing loss. Parents could choose to receive results relating to hearing loss only or also learn additional information about childhood-onset conditions (medically nonactionable and/or actionable). This study aimed to quantify the personal utility of WES for parents after a diagnosis of hearing loss in their child. Parents completed surveys pretest (63/106), after hearing loss results (52/106) and after receiving additional information (47/72). Open-ended responses from all three surveys (N = 67) were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Answers to questions regarding the value of sequencing to parents were analyzed and collated. Parents placed high value on diagnostic WES for hearing loss but had different perspectives on the personal utility of additional information. Diagnostic results provided certainty while the choice to learn additional information about childhood-onset disorders was associated with empowerment. WES also represented an opportunity to promote their child's best interests. Results provide insights into the utility of WES for the indication of congenital deafness and for genomic newborn screening broadly.

Perceptions of parents of children with hearing loss of genetic origin in South Africa

More than 80% of people with hearing loss (HL) live in low- and middle-income countries. Up to 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, leading to novel parenting, communication, educational, and psychosocial experiences. Half of congenital pre-lingual HL is genetic, with a relatively high recurrence risk that may lead to specific challenges for parents of affected children. Currently, little is known of genes implicated and causative mutations for most populations who have HL in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as genetic counseling services needs for this population. Therefore, this study aimed to explore parents' perceptions and understanding of the genetic etiology of their child's HL, in order to inform policies and services. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 parents of children who have non-syndromic HL of putative genetic origin. Data were analyzed through the framework approach. Three salient themes emerged, namely comprehension and understanding of the cause, in which most parents were unable to identify the potential hereditary cause of their child's HL; responsibility and blame; and their perception of genetic counseling and testing. Most of the participants had positive attitudes towards genetic testing, describing that it may provide answers and that the information gained would be helpful for the future. The data could assist in understanding the challenges faced by parents, in the absence of genetic testing, emphasizing the need for accurate genetic testing to support counseling services to parents of children with HL in an African Setting.

"My Plate is Full": Reasons for Declining a Genetic Evaluation of Hearing Loss

The aim of this study was to obtain patient and parent perspectives on genetic evaluation of hearing loss, in order to identify motivators, expectations, and barriers. Three focus groups were conducted following a semi-structured discussion guide, led by an independent moderator. Participants were hearing parents of children with permanent hearing loss or deaf adults. Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a codebook and identify major themes and subthemes. Participant views were compared to national guidelines. The 28 participants comprised 23 parents representing 21 unique families and 5 deaf adults. 13/21 families and 0/5 adults reported comorbidities, 4/21 families and 3/5 adults had a positive family history, and 12/21 families versus 0/5 adults had utilized genetics services. A common theme among adults and parents was a curiosity as to the cause of hearing loss. Parents were motivated to detect comorbidities and optimize care for hearing loss. Some parents felt overwhelmed by the hearing loss and unprepared to pursue early genetic evaluation as recommended in guidelines. Several reported positive experiences following genetics consultation, while others reported unease and unmet expectations. Notably, both parents and adults expressed ambivalence regarding the desire for genetic knowledge. Financial concerns and difficulties obtaining a referral were cited as extrinsic barriers. For parents of children with hearing loss, both the presence of comorbidities and a positive family history were drivers of genetics consultation and/or genetic testing. We identified educational opportunities for both patients and providers that would improve informed decision-making and increase access to genetic services. Consideration of the patient/family perspective and their decision-making processes, along with flexibility in the approach to genetics evaluation and its timing, will optimize both the development and implementation of guidelines.

Do parental perceptions and motivations towards genetic testing and prenatal diagnosis for deafness vary in different cultures?

Surveys of attitudes of individuals with deafness and their families towards genetic testing or prenatal diagnosis have mostly been carried out in the West. It is expected that the perceptions and attitudes would vary amongst persons of different cultures and economic background. There is little information on the prevailing attitudes for genetic testing and prenatal diagnosis for deafness in developing countries. Therefore, this study evaluates the motivations of Indian people with inherited hearing loss towards such testing. Twenty-eight families with history of congenital hearing loss (23 hearing parents with child/family member with deafness, 4 couples with both partners having deafness and 1 parent and child with deafness) participated in a semi-structured survey investigating their interest, attitudes, and intentions for using genetic and prenatal testing for deafness. Participants opinioned that proper management and care of individuals with deafness were handicapped by limited rehabilitation facilities with significant financial and social burden. Nineteen (68%) opted for genetic testing. Twenty-six (93%) expressed high interest in prenatal diagnosis, while 19 (73%) would consider termination of an affected fetus. Three hearing couples, in whom the causative mutations were identified, opted for prenatal diagnosis. On testing, all the three fetuses were affected and the hearing parents elected to terminate the pregnancies. This study provides an insight into the contrasting perceptions towards hearing disability in India and its influence on the desirability of genetic testing and prenatal diagnosis.

Impact of genetic advances and testing for hearing loss: results from a national consumer survey

Hearing loss is a common neuro-sensory deficit; nearly 50% of children with hearing loss have a genetic etiology. With the discovery of 40 genes and more than 100 loci involved in hearing loss, genetic testing is becoming more widely available. The information obtained through genetic testing can be perceived and used in different ways by parents of deaf children and deaf adults, based on their prior knowledge and understanding of these advances. It is therefore important to clarify the feelings of these potential consumers towards genetic services for hearing loss and understand their goals for genetic testing. The present study evaluates the feelings of consumers towards the advances in the genetics of hearing loss, the motivations for pursuing testing, and the perceived impact testing may have on their lives. We surveyed 808 parents of children with hearing loss nationally and 156 young deaf adults at Gallaudet University. In this study, learning the etiology of the hearing loss was the most commonly cited motivation for pursuing genetic testing and for parents was the most commonly cited outcome that genetic testing may have on their children's lives. Culturally Deaf respondents were less likely to believe that genetic testing will impact their lives or their children's lives and were less likely to report positive feelings about advances in the genetics of hearing loss. Cultural affiliation and genetic testing status, rather than hearing status, contributed more to the participants' responses.

A prospective, longitudinal study of the impact of GJB2/GJB6 genetic testing on the beliefs and attitudes of parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing infants

There are limited data on the impact of incorporating genetic counseling and testing into the newborn hearing screening process. We report on results from a prospective, longitudinal study to determine the impact of genetic counseling and GJB2/GJB6 genetic testing on parental knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about genetic testing. One hundred thirty culturally hearing parents of 93 deaf or hard-of-hearing children ages 0-3 years primarily identified through newborn hearing screening received pre- and post-test genetic counseling for GJB2 and GJB6. Parents completed questionnaires following pre-test counseling, and 1- and 6-month post-test result disclosure. Results indicate that following pre-test counseling all parents perceived benefits to genetic testing. While parents who received positive results continued to perceive benefits from testing, perceived benefit declined among parents who received inconclusive or negative results. Parents did not perceive genetic testing as harmful following pre-test counseling or receipt of test results. Parents who received positive test results performed better in understanding recurrence and causation of their child's deafness and indicated greater interest in prenatal genetic testing than those who received inconclusive or negative test results. Parents felt that pediatricians and audiologists should inform parents of genetic testing availability; however, there was no consensus on timing of this discussion. Thus culturally hearing parents do not perceive genetic testing of their deaf or hard-of-hearing infants/toddlers as harmful; they feel that primary care providers should discuss genetic testing with them; and positive genetic test results with genetic counseling give rise to better understanding and perceived benefit than negative or inconclusive results.

Genetics of congenital hearing impairment: a clinical approach

Hearing impairment (HI) is the most frequent sensory disorder, with a genetic etiology in >50% of all cases, due to mutations in >44 identified genes. Autosomal recessive inheritance explains the majority, with GJB2 (connexin 26) mutations accounting for 15-50% of paediatric HI. Delayed presentation of HI to 11-60 months in cases of biallelic GJB2 mutations is a concern, necessitating a good audiological follow-up in addition to neonatal hearing screening. Providing a genetic diagnosis in congenital HI has implications for the prognosis, the possible risk of associated medical manifestations, and precise genetic counseling of the family, and should be integrated into the medical examinations done in order to diagnose syndromic features. Large-scale mutation detection methods, such as micro arrays, are promising for wider genetic testing, but few studies on their clinical utility have been published, so far. Limitations of interpretation of genetic test results, combined with significant ethical issues, currently do not justify to institute genetic screening for GJB2 mutations in neonates before a diagnosis of HI is established.