Knowledge, attitudes, and barriers to carrier screening for the Ashkenazi Jewish panel: a Florida experience : Education and Barriers assessment for Jewish Genetic Diseases

Expanded carrier screening in the United States: A systematic evidence review exploring client and provider experiences

The aim of carrier screening is to identify prospective parents at risk of having a pregnancy affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked disorder. Though minimal guideline-based screening is available, expanded carrier screening (ECS) is quickly becoming a feasible option for the general population due to its growing availability and affordability. However, the impact of ECS on clients and providers remains relatively unexplored. We performed a systematic evidence review to identify publications describing client-, provider-, and test-related outcomes. We searched several biomedical databases for articles published between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they described genetic counseling and/or genetic testing for carrier screening (minimal guideline-based or ECS) in a prenatal or preconception setting in the United States. Title and abstract screening were performed using the Raayan web application or customized Google Forms. Full-text review and data extraction of included articles were performed using custom Google Forms. Two researchers performed a multistep selection process independently for validation purposes. Of 5413 unique articles screened, 36 studies were included with several studies contributing to multiple outcomes. Twenty described outcomes relating to patients/clients, 10 described provider-based outcomes, and 16 described test-based outcomes. Findings suggest that client and provider perceptions of ECS and minimal guideline-based carrier screening are multifaceted. Though clients have expressed desire for ECS, clinical uptake and impact on reproductive decision-making varies. Additionally, though genetic counselors seem to be comfortable with ECS, most other reproductive care providers seem to prefer minimal guideline or ancestry-based screening due to perceived barriers, such as time needed for ECS results disclosure and follow-up, as well as the desire to have panels set by professional societies/recommendations. There are limitations within the gathered literature, leading to potential uncertainty in the generalizability of our review. We outline several recommendations for future studies, including the need to examine variant interpretation and use of next-generation sequencing.

A collaborative genetic carrier screening model for the British Ashkenazi Jewish community

We present a unique model of a British genetic carrier screening programme for individuals with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry that exemplifies a partnership between a publicly funded healthcare service (the NHS) and a charity, Jnetics. This model provides affordable access to carrier screening for severe autosomal recessive diseases increased in this community. Prior to the development of this programme, the British healthcare system only provided Tay Sachs’ screening for this community, leaving them at higher risk of having a child with a serious autosomal recessive disease. The Jnetics screening programme is promoted through community and social media campaigns, involves educational outreach, a pre-test genetic counselling service by a dedicated NHS-based genetic counsellor, saliva-based DNA testing, comprehensive reporting and, where required, post-test genetic counselling. The charity raises funds to subsidise the screening. In 6 years, the model has been successfully implemented in hospital and community settings and in schools and universities, aiming to reach those pre-conception. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the programme adapted by offering genetic screening virtually and has subsequently expanded in its outreach. Furthermore, the screening panel is currently being expanded to include other conditions increased in the Ashkenazi and also the Sephardi and Mizrahi Jewish communities. An example of innovation and accessibility, providing free screening to all students and disadvantaged individuals, the programme aims to provide a model that can potentially be adopted by other genetically at-risk communities.

Practices in synagogues regarding Jewish genetic disease education

Approximately one in three Ashkenazi Jews are carriers for an autosomal recessive Jewish genetic disease (JGD). However, studies indicate that most Jews are uneducated on this topic and obstetricians do not routinely offer carrier screening to Jewish patients. Both the Reform and Conservative movements of Judaism call for JGD education to take place within the synagogue; however, little is known about the extent of this education occurring today. An online survey was created for Reform and Conservative rabbis to assess the types of JGD education taking place within the synagogue. Additionally, the survey included questions to assess JGD knowledge and possible factors that could predict counseling activity and knowledge level. Of the 94 participants, 91% had provided education about JGDs to congregants, with 98.8% providing this education during premarital counseling sessions. For most respondents, explaining recessive inheritance pattern and carrier screening was the extent of the discussion. Additionally, the majority of rabbis scored below 50% on the knowledge portion of the survey, with an average score of 1.9/4. There were no statistically significant differences between JGD education in Reform vs. Conservative synagogues, and there were no statistically significant predictors of knowledge score or JGD education frequency. In conclusion, while the number of rabbis discussing this topic is encouraging, discussion topics were found to be limited and their knowledge of JGDs was found to be poor.

Preconception carrier screening for multiple disorders: evaluation of a screening offer in a Dutch founder population

Technological developments have enabled carrier screening for multiple disorders. This study evaluated experiences with a preconception carrier screening offer for four recessive disorders in a Dutch founder population. Questionnaires were completed by 182 attendees pretesting and posttesting and by 137 non-attendees. Semistructured interviews were conducted with seven of the eight carrier couples. Attendees were mainly informed about the existence of screening by friends/colleagues (49%) and family members (44%). Familiarity with the genetic disorders was high. Knowledge after counseling increased (p < 0.001); however, still 9%, compared to 29% before counseling, wrongly mentioned an increased risk of having an affected child if both parents are carriers of different disorders. Most attendees (97%) recalled their test results correctly, but two couples reported being carrier of another disorder than reported. Overall, 63% felt worried while waiting for results but anxiety levels returned to normal afterwards. In all, 2/39 (5%) carriers felt less healthy. Screened individuals were very satisfied; they did not regret testing (97%) and would recommend testing to others (97%). The majority (94%) stated that couples should always have a pretest consultation, preferably by a genetic counselor rather than their general practitioner (83%). All carrier couples made reproductive decisions based on their results. Main reason for non-attendance was unawareness of the screening offer. With expanded carrier screening, adequately informing couples pretest and posttesting is of foremost importance. Close influencers (family/friends) can be used to raise awareness of a screening offer. Our findings provide lessons for the implementation of expanded carrier screening panels in other communities and other settings.

Experiences among Women with Positive Prenatal Expanded Carrier Screening Results

The offering and acceptance of expanded carrier screening is increasing among pregnant women including women without an increased risk based on race, ethnicity or family history. The chances of a positive screening test have been reported to be as high as 24 % when multiple conditions are screened. Yet, little is known about the way these tests are offered and how patients are affected by a positive test result. To explore this area of genetic testing, interviews (n = 17) were conducted among women who received positive expanded carrier results in the context of obstetric care. A content analysis was conducted on the transcript data from the interviews. Outcomes of this research suggest that educational interventions are needed to improve maternal understanding of positive carrier screening results. Most of the participants in this study confused the results with other prenatal screening test options. In addition, the way the results were discussed varied greatly, and influenced participants' thoughts about reproductive decisions that led to a range of emotional uncertainty. Our data suggests that genetic counseling improved participants' understanding of positive results. More research is needed to further understand if our results are consistent within a larger, more diverse sample, and to explore how to best provide education about expanded carrier screening.

Do people from the Jewish community prefer ancestry-based or pan-ethnic expanded carrier screening?

Ancestry-based carrier screening in the Ashkenazi Jewish population entails screening for specific autosomal recessive founder mutations, which are rarer among the general population. As it is now technically feasible to screen for many more diseases, the question arises whether this population prefers a limited ancestry-based offer or a pan-ethnic expanded carrier screening panel that goes beyond the diseases that are frequent in their own population, and is offered regardless of ancestry. An online questionnaire was completed by 145 individuals from the Dutch Jewish community (≥18 years) between April and July 2014. In total, 64.8% were aware of the existence of ancestry-based carrier screening, and respondents were generally positive about screening. About half (53.8%) preferred pan-ethnic expanded carrier screening, whereas 42.8% preferred ancestry-based screening. Reasons for preferring pan-ethnic screening included ‘everyone has a right to be tested', ‘fear of stigmatization when offering ancestry-based panels', and ‘difficulties with identifying risk owing to mixed backgrounds'. ‘Preventing high healthcare costs' was the most important reason against pan-ethnic carrier screening among those in favor of an ancestry-based panel. In conclusion, these findings show that people from the Dutch Jewish community have a positive attitude regarding carrier screening in their community for a wide range of diseases. As costs of expanded carrier screening panels are most likely to drop in the near future, it is expected that these panels will receive more support in the future.