Implementing Group Prenatal Counseling for Expanded Noninvasive Screening Options

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Counselling and education for prenatal screening and diagnostic tests for pregnant women: Randomized controlled trial

AIM

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of education and counselling on prenatal screening and diagnostic tests on pregnant women's decisional conflict, anxiety levels and attitudes towards the tests.

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines recommend prenatal genetic counselling for pregnant women before participation in the tests.

METHODS

A total of 210 pregnant women participated in the study by completing the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-I, Decisional Conflict Scale, SURE Scale, Knowledge Assessment Forms, Decision Satisfaction Form and Attitudes Scale between June 2017 and March 2018. In the first stage, pregnant women were evaluated who had only prenatal genetic screening tests and in the second stage, pregnant women who had been recommended to receive diagnostic tests. The intervention group received face-to-face individual education and counselling about prenatal genetic tests. Independent samples t test, t tests and Pearson correlation tests were used.

RESULTS

Education and counselling for prenatal screening tests and diagnostic tests from the first weeks of pregnancy were effective in decreasing anxiety, decisional conflict, increasing attitudes towards tests and had positive effects on pregnant women's knowledge level and decision satisfaction (P < 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Prenatal genetic counselling and education are more effective if provided from the first weeks of pregnancy. Decreasing anxiety, decisional conflict and increasing knowledge levels of pregnant women are important to make informed decisions.

From late fatherhood to prenatal screening of monogenic disorders: evidence and ethical concerns

BACKGROUND

With the help of ART, an advanced parental age is not considered to be a serious obstacle for reproduction anymore. However, significant health risks for future offspring hide behind the success of reproductive medicine for the treatment of reduced fertility associated with late parenthood. Although an advanced maternal age is a well-known risk factor for poor reproductive outcomes, understanding the impact of an advanced paternal age on offspring is yet to be elucidated. De novo monogenic disorders (MDs) are highly associated with late fatherhood. MDs are one of the major sources of paediatric morbidity and mortality, causing significant socioeconomic and psychological burdens to society. Although individually rare, the combined prevalence of these disorders is as high as that of chromosomal aneuploidies, indicating the increasing need for prenatal screening. With the help of advanced reproductive technologies, families with late paternity have the option of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for multiple MDs (MD-NIPT), which has a sensitivity and specificity of almost 100%.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The main aims of the current review were to examine the effect of late paternity on the origin and nature of MDs, to highlight the role of NIPT for the detection of a variety of paternal age-associated MDs, to describe clinical experiences and to reflect on the ethical concerns surrounding the topic of late paternity and MD-NIPT.

SEARCH METHODS

An extensive search of peer-reviewed publications (1980-2021) in English from the PubMed and Google Scholar databases was based on key words in different combinations: late paternity, paternal age, spermatogenesis, selfish spermatogonial selection, paternal age effect, de novo mutations (DNMs), MDs, NIPT, ethics of late fatherhood, prenatal testing and paternal rights.

OUTCOMES

An advanced paternal age provokes the accumulation of DNMs, which arise in continuously dividing germline cells. A subset of DNMs, owing to their effect on the rat sarcoma virus protein-mitogen-activated protein kinase signalling pathway, becomes beneficial for spermatogonia, causing selfish spermatogonial selection and outgrowth, and in some rare cases may lead to spermatocytic seminoma later in life. In the offspring, these selfish DNMs cause paternal age effect (PAE) disorders with a severe and even life-threatening phenotype. The increasing tendency for late paternity and the subsequent high risk of PAE disorders indicate an increased need for a safe and reliable detection procedure, such as MD-NIPT. The MD-NIPT approach has the capacity to provide safe screening for pregnancies at risk of PAE disorders and MDs, which constitute up to 20% of all pregnancies. The primary risks include pregnancies with a paternal age over 40 years, a previous history of an affected pregnancy/child, and/or congenital anomalies detected by routine ultrasonography. The implementation of NIPT-based screening would support the early diagnosis and management needed in cases of affected pregnancy. However, the benefits of MD-NIPT need to be balanced with the ethical challenges associated with the introduction of such an approach into routine clinical practice, namely concerns regarding reproductive autonomy, informed consent, potential disability discrimination, paternal rights and PAE-associated issues, equity and justice in accessing services, and counselling.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Considering the increasing parental age and risks of MDs, combined NIPT for chromosomal aneuploidies and microdeletion syndromes as well as tests for MDs might become a part of routine pregnancy management in the near future. Moreover, the ethical challenges associated with the introduction of MD-NIPT into routine clinical practice need to be carefully evaluated. Furthermore, more focus and attention should be directed towards the ethics of late paternity, paternal rights and paternal genetic guilt associated with pregnancies affected with PAE MDs.

Interventions aiming to improve informed decision on prenatal screening and testing: A scoping review of the literature

The aim of this scoping review was to explore interventions and their effect in facilitating decision making on prenatal screening and testing among pregnant women. This review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Methods Manual for scoping reviews. Studies published 2000-2019 that consist of interventions to facilitate pregnant women's decision making in prenatal screening and testing were specifically reviewed. A total of 27 studies are included in this scoping review. In these studies, various methods, including face-to-face individual or group interventions, e-Health interventions, video-based interventions, written educational materials, and decision aid interventions, were developed and tested for their effectiveness in facilitating informed decision making on prenatal screening and testing. While these methods appeared to be effective, further studies involving diverse populations are needed to integrate them into practice. Genetic counselors and healthcare providers working with individuals who are referred for genetic education and counseling need to work collaboratively to facilitate informed decisions on prenatal screening of women and/or their partners.

Pregnant women's opinions toward prenatal pretest genetic counseling in Japan

In-person models of genetic counseling (GC) have been the common method in Japan for pregnant women to receive GC. However, recent increases in the number of pregnant women considering undergoing prenatal testing have made it challenging to retain individualized in-person care. To explore pregnant women’s opinions toward pretest GC models and the ideal time duration, a self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted for women at their first prenatal visit. A total of 114 valid respondents (93.4%) were included in the analyses. Of these, 80.7% of women preferred in-person GC, followed by classroom (9.6%), group (3.5%), and telegenetic-based GC (2.6%). Women with experience in undergoing prenatal testing significantly did not prefer in-person GC (p = 0.05). Sixty-two women (54.4%) preferred a duration of 15–29 min for pretest GC sessions, followed by 30–59 min (28.9%) and <15 min (14.9%). Women’s preference of ≥30 min in length was significantly associated with anhedonia, singleton pregnancies, acquaintance with people with trisomy 21, and awareness of prenatal testing. Women who were unaware of the need for agreement with the partner for prenatal testing and who did not know the average life expectancy of a trisomy 21 patient significantly preferred <15 min in length over other durations. While the majority of women preferred in-person GC for <30 min, their preferences varied by their background characteristics, experiences, attitudes, and knowledge. These findings will help establish a prenatal GC system offering a choice of GC models in Japan; however, further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Decision-making factors in prenatal testing: A systematic review

This review examines the factors that affect the decision-making process of parental couples evaluating prenatal screening and diagnostic tests. A systematic search was performed using PubMed and PsycInfo databases. The 46 included studies had to: investigate the decision-making process about prenatal testing; focus on tests detecting trisomy 21, 18, 13, and abnormalities of sex chromosomes; be published in English peer-reviewed journals. The decision-making process seems composed of different levels: an individual level with demographic, clinical, and psychological aspects; a contextual level related to the technical features of the test and the information received; a relational level involving family and society.

Educational and Ethical Considerations for Genetic Test Implementation Within Health Care Systems

Introduction: The precision medicine (PM) era presents unprecedented proliferation of genetic/genomic initiatives, information, and bioinformatic tools to enhance targeted molecular diagnosis and therapeutic treatments. As of February 29, 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Genetic Testing Registry contained 64,860 genetic tests for 12,268 conditions and 18,686 genes from 560 laboratories, and the Food and Drug Administration had 404 entries for pharmacogeneomic biomarkers used in drug labeling. Population-based research initiatives including NIH's All of Us and Veterans Affairs' Million Veteran Program, and the UK Biobank, combine use of genomic biorepositories with electronic medical records (i.e., National Human Genome Research Institute's [NHGRI's] electronic Medical Records and Genomics [eMERGE] Network). Learning health care systems are implementing clinical genomics screening programs and precision oncology programs. However, there are insufficient medical geneticists, nurse geneticists, and genetics counselors to implement expanding number of clinical genetic tests that are required for PM implementation. Methods: A scoping review of current (2014-2019) trends in U.S. genomic medicine translation, PM health care provider workforce education and training resources, and genomic clinical decision support (CDS) implementation tools was conducted. Results: Health care delivery institutions and systems are beginning to implement genetic tests that are driving PM, particularly in the areas of oncology, pharmacogenetics, obstetrics, and prenatal diagnostics. To ensure safe adoption and clinical translation of PM, health care systems have an ethical responsibility to ensure their providers and front-line staff are adequately prepared to order, use, and interpret genetic test information. Conclusion: There are a number of high-quality evidenced-based educational resources and CDS tools available. Strong partnerships between health care system leaders, front-line providers and staff coupled with reasonable goal setting can help drive PM translation interests.

Access to Genetic Counselors in the Southern United States

The expansion of genetic and genomic testing across medical specialties and the changing workforce demographics of certified genetic counselors (CGCs) have led to concerns of a workforce shortage. We assessed the number of genetic counselors working in the Southern United States-a rural and medically underserved region-using various online and professional resources. We identified 683 practicing genetic counselors across the Southern U.S. and 160 specializing in prenatal genetics. CGCs were concentrated in urban areas; counties with a CGC had a significantly higher proportion of minority residents and median household income than counties without a CGC. There is an average of 2.97 prenatal CGCs per 5000 high-risk births in the South. Alternative delivery models are needed to increase access to counseling services in the Southern U.S., particularly for low income households and those of high risk pregnancies. Increased provider education and patient educational materials can help facilitate informed decision-making in prenatal settings as genetic technologies gain a stronger foothold and bring value to medical practice.

The importance of pre- and post-test counseling for prenatal cell-free DNA screening for common fetal aneuploidies

INTRODUCTION

Prenatal cell-free DNA screening for common fetal aneuploidies has rapidly changed the paradigm of prenatal care. Despite its advantages compared to conventional screening methods, its unexpectedly rapid implementation in clinical practice has generated several ethical and medical issues and misconceptions. Aggressive commercial marketing of cell-free DNA screening and media dissemination of misleading information have added confusion. Areas covered: This review provides an extensive update and will focus on the importance of pre-and post-test counseling for prenatal cell-free DNA screening not previously discussed extensively in the available literature. Additionally, we report cell-free DNA screening implementation in the largest obstetrical tertiary unit in Finland which is one of few countries that provides all prenatal screening methods free of charge for all women and has a very high uptake of first-trimester screening. This is not a systematical review, but rather a narrative overview which includes the most relevant and recent original publications and reviews covering this issue. Expert opinion: Despite being the most accurate method for screening of common fetal aneuploidies, the knowledge and counseling should be substantially improved. Cell-free DNA screening is not a replacement for diagnostic testing and its use in prenatal testing is complex and limited.

Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women's experiences

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can be used to accurately detect fetal chromosomal anomalies early in pregnancy by assessing cell-free fetal DNA present in maternal blood. The rapid diffusion of NIPT, as well as the ease and simplicity of the test raises concerns around informed decision-making and the potential for routinization. Introducing NIPT in a way that facilitates informed and autonomous decisions is imperative to the ethical application of this technology. We approach this imperative by systematically reviewing and synthesizing primary qualitative research on women's experiences with and preferences for informed decision-making around NIPT.

METHODS

We searched multiple bibliographic databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and ISI Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Our review was guided by integrative qualitative meta-synthesis, and we used a staged coding process similar to that of grounded theory to conduct our analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty empirical primary qualitative research studies were eligible for inclusion. Women preferred to learn about NIPT from their clinicians, but they expressed dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of information provided during counselling and often sought information from a variety of other sources. Women generally had a good understanding of test characteristics, and the factors of accuracy, physical risk, and test timing were the critical information elements that they used to make informed decisions around NIPT. Women often described NIPT as easy or just another blood test, highlighting threats to informed decision-making such as routinization or a pressure to test.

CONCLUSIONS

Women's unique circumstances modulate the information that they value and require most in the context of making an informed decision. Widened availability of trustworthy information about NIPT as well as careful attention to the facilitation of counselling may help facilitate informed decision-making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018086261 .