Information Related to Prenatal Genetic Counseling: Interpretation by Adolescents, Effects on Risk Perception and Ethical Implications

What’s in a Name? Parents’ and Healthcare Professionals’ Preferred Terminology for Pathogenic Variants in Childhood Cancer Predisposition Genes

Current literature/guidelines regarding the most appropriate term to communicate a cancer-related disease-causing germline variant in childhood cancer lack consensus. Guidelines also rarely address preferences of patients/families. We aimed to assess preferences of parents of children with cancer, genetics professionals, and pediatric oncologists towards terminology to describe a disease-causing germline variant in childhood cancer. Using semi-structured interviews we asked participants their most/least preferred terms from; ‘faulty gene,’ ‘altered gene,’ ‘gene change,’ and ‘genetic variant,’ analyzing responses with directed content analysis. Twenty-five parents, 6 genetics professionals, and 29 oncologists participated. An equal number of parents most preferred ‘gene change,’ ‘altered gene,’ or ‘genetic variant’ (n = 8/25). Parents least preferred ‘faulty gene’ (n = 18/25). Half the genetics professionals most preferred ‘faulty gene’ (n = 3/6); however this was least preferred by the remaining genetics professionals (n = 3/6). Many oncologists most preferred ‘genetic variant’ (n = 11/29) and least preferred ‘faulty gene’ (n = 19/29). Participants across all groups perceived ‘faulty gene’ as having negative connotations, potentially placing blame/guilt on parents/children. Health professionals described challenges selecting a term that was scientifically accurate, easily understood and not distressing to families. Lack of consensus highlights the need to be guided by families’ preferred terminology, while providing accurate explanations regarding implications of genetic findings.

Experiences With Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Diagnosis Among Adolescents With a Genetic Condition: A Scoping Review

IMPORTANCE

The number of adolescents who are diagnosed with a genetic disorder is increasing as genome sequencing becomes the standard of clinical diagnostic testing. However, the experience of receiving a diagnosis of a genetic condition has not been extensively studied in adolescents.

OBJECTIVE

To identify how adolescents with a genetic condition engage with genetic or genomic counseling services as well as interpret, adapt to, and experience their diagnosis.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO was undertaken. Articles (primary literature, knowledge syntheses, and gray literature) in English that investigated the experiences of adolescents between 10 and 19 years of age who received genetic or genomic counseling were included. Data were extracted from 45 eligible articles and analyzed descriptively.

FINDINGS

A total of 45 studies were included, most of which were quantitative in nature (21 of 45 [47%]) and conducted in the US (n = 13), followed by the UK (n = 8), Australia (n = 8), and Canada (n = 6). A total of 29 distinct monogenic disorders were investigated. Sample sizes ranged from 1 to 930, with a median of 23 participants, and the year of publication ranged from 1977 to 2019. Included studies addressed all aspects of genetic counseling, but a preponderance of articles assessed knowledge about genetic conditions (n = 17) and challenges of communication within families (n = 16). Fewer articles addressed the experiences of adolescents adapting to their genetic conditions (n = 8) and the genetic counseling process (n = 4). Only 1 study addressed any aspect of genetic counseling in relation to genome sequencing.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This scoping review found that most of the included studies focused on adolescents' knowledge about their genetic condition and communication about genetic risks, whereas fewer studies explored their adaptation to the condition and the genetic counseling process. A systematic reconsideration of the genetic counseling process may be undertaken to provide an evidence-informed health care service that is tailored to the needs of this adolescent population.

Content analysis of Journal of Genetic Counseling research articles: A multi-year perspective

Content analyses of published papers in journals inform readers, editors, and members of the profession about historical publication patterns and how the journal has represented the field. This study is a content analysis of original research papers published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling from January 2011 through December 2017. This is the first study of its kind for the flagship journal of the National Society of Genetic Counseling. Of 794 papers published in the 7-year period, 428 were original research included in the analysis. Content analysis yielded categories reflecting the types of data analyses, genetic counseling practice specialties, characteristics of the study sample, and major topics/issues investigated in each study. There was an overall positive linear trend in the number of articles published during this period (p = .002). Approximately equal percentages of studies used qualitative (34%), quantitative (31%), and mixed (35%) analyses, and these proportions did not vary significantly across volumes (p = .73). Cancer (27%), prenatal (13.3%), and general genetics (12.6%) were the most prevalent specialties represented. The number of studies about prenatal and pediatrics was less, and the number of studies about neurogenetics was greater than would be expected based on the clinical workforce (p<.001). Patients were the most common sample (55.6%). While there was a significant increase in the number of articles with diverse samples (p = .001), the proportion of such articles did not increase over time (p = .86). The most common content areas were genetic counseling practice (16.8%); attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs about genetics services (16.1%); and decision-making (14.5%). In contrast, relatively few studies focused on laboratory genetic counselor, male, gender non-conforming, and adoptee populations. The trends and gaps highlighted in this content analysis can inform future research endeavors.

Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) and Preferences for Risk Information among High School Students in Sweden

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was recently introduced for prenatal testing of genetic disorders. Cell-free fetal DNA is present in maternal blood during pregnancy and enables detection of fetal chromosome aberrations in a maternal blood sample. The public perspective to this new, simple method has not been illuminated. The views of young people (i.e. future parents) are important to develop suitable counseling strategies regarding prenatal testing. The aim was to explore Swedish high school students’ attitudes, knowledge and preferences regarding NIPT. A questionnaire was completed by 305 students recruited from one high school in Stockholm, November and December 2014. Most students (80 %) considered prenatal testing as good. The majority (65 %) was positive or very positive towards NIPT and 62 % stated that they potentially would like to undergo the test if they or their partner was pregnant. The vast majority (94 %) requested further information about NIPT. Most students (61 %) preferred verbal information, whereas 20 % preferred information via the Internet. The majority of the high school students was positive towards prenatal testing and most was positive towards NIPT. Further, information was requested by the vast majority before making a decision about NIPT. Most of the students preferred verbal information and to a lesser extent information via the Internet. The attitudes, knowledge and preferences for risk information concerning NIPT in young adults are important, in order to increase knowledge on how to educate and inform future parents.

Ethical challenges in teaching genetics for medical students

Although inclusion of ethics as a study course in medical students' curricula is a common practice, special approaches in teaching ethics in the context of genetics should be considered. In the realm of genomics, there are several ethically sensitive topics such as diagnosis of genetic diseases, in vitro fertilization, and identification of genetic susceptibility to common diseases. In addition, in communication with the general public, genetic terms should be used with caution. Demonstration of the phenotypes of affected individuals should be regarded as a particular aspect of teaching genetics. In a description of a patient's phenotype, not only is it necessary to provide scientifically precise characteristics of a patient; voice timbre, facial expression, and body language should also be carefully controlled. Furthermore, in medicine, the theory-practice gap is a problematic aspect, and students often find it difficult to apply knowledge on ethical issues to real situations in clinics. For this purpose, clinical cases are presented during classes and their analysis requires a very respectful attitude on the part of both students and lecturers. For many genetic diseases, evaluation of minor anomalies such as a curved fifth finger, low situated ears, or missing of some teeth is required. Some minor anomalies are found in healthy individuals too, and interpretation of such features must therefore be considered carefully. This article describes our experiences in teaching genetics at Riga Stradinš University, ethical problems faced while teaching genetics, and their solutions.

Tricky teens: are they really tricky or do genetic health professionals simply require more training in adolescent health?

Providing health services to young people poses specific challenges as a consequence of their unique developmental stage. In the field of genetics, providing developmentally appropriate care can be further complicated by the familial nature of genetic information. Several fields of medicine have developed specific guidance around how best to work with adolescent patients. No such advice exists in the field of clinical genetics or genetic counseling. It is time for the field of genetics to address this aspect of practice through development of a specific adolescent-friendly model of care. Without such a model, the field risks falling behind other medical specialties and adolescents who visit genetic health professionals are at risk of missing out on best possible care.