1
|
Klein D, van Dijke I, van Langen IM, Dondorp W, Lakeman P, Henneman L, Cornel MC. Perceptions of reproductive healthcare providers regarding their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening in fertility clinics: a qualitative study. Reprod Biomed Online 2024; 49:103857. [PMID: 38643517 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.103857] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2023] [Revised: 01/01/2024] [Accepted: 01/29/2024] [Indexed: 04/23/2024]
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION What are the main arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour or against their involvement in offering expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive disorders at fertility clinics in the Netherlands? DESIGN Semi-structured interview study with 20 reproductive healthcare providers between May 2020 and January 2021. Participants included 11 gynaecologists, seven fertility doctors, one nurse practitioner and one clinical embryologist, recruited from academic medical centres (n = 13), peripheral facilities associated with academic centres (n = 4), and independent fertility treatment centres (n = 3) in the Netherlands. An interview guide was developed, and thematic content analysis was performed using ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS Arguments of reproductive healthcare providers in favour of their potential involvement in offering ECS included: (i) opportunities offered by the setting; (ii) motivation to assist in reproduction and prevent suffering; and (iii) to counter unwanted commercialization offers. Arguments against involvement included: (i) lack of knowledge and familiarity with offering ECS; (ii) insufficient staff and resources, and potential high costs for clinics and/or couples; (iii) the emotional impact it may have on couples; (iv) perceived complexity of counselling and expected elongation of waiting lists; and (v) expected low impact on reducing the burden of diseases. Participants felt that more evidence and research on the costs-benefits, implications and demand are needed prior to their involvement. CONCLUSION While agreeing that the field of medically assisted reproduction provides a unique opportunity to offer ECS, reproductive healthcare workers feel a lack of capability and limited motivation to offer ECS to all or a selection of couples at their fertility clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Klein
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ivy van Dijke
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Irene M van Langen
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Wybo Dondorp
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Phillis Lakeman
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Lidewij Henneman
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Martina C Cornel
- Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Freeman L, Bristowe L, Kirk EP, Delatycki MB, Scully JL. Should genes for non-syndromic hearing loss be included in reproductive genetic carrier screening: Views of people with a personal or family experience of deafness. J Genet Couns 2024; 33:566-577. [PMID: 37533186 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1757] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2023] [Revised: 06/26/2023] [Accepted: 07/14/2023] [Indexed: 08/04/2023]
Abstract
Many commercial reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) panels include genes associated with non-syndromic hearing loss (NSHL), however little is known about the general acceptability of their inclusion. Although some couples wish to avoid having a deaf child, there are effective interventions and supports available for deafness, and no consensus on whether it is appropriate to reproductively screen NSHL genes. This study explored views of people with personal experience of deafness regarding carrier screening for genes associated with NSHL. We interviewed 27 participants; 14 who identified as deaf and 13 hearing parents of a deaf child. Thematic analysis was undertaken on transcripts of interviews. The findings reveal the complexity of attitudes within these groups. Some vacillated between the wish to support prospective parents' reproductive autonomy and concerns about potential harms, especially the expression of negative messages about deafness and the potential loss of acceptance in society. While some participants felt carrier screening could help prospective parents to prepare for a deaf child, there was little support for reproductive screening and termination of pregnancy. Participants emphasized the need for accurate information about the lived experience of deafness. The majority felt deafness is not as severe as other conditions included in RGCS, and most do not consider deafness as a disability. People with personal experience of deafness have diverse attitudes towards RGCS for deafness informed by their own identify and experience, and many have concerns about how it should be discussed and implemented in a population wide RGCS program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucinda Freeman
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Lisa Bristowe
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Edwin P Kirk
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- NSW Health Pathology East Genomics Laboratory, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Martin B Delatycki
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jackie Leach Scully
- Disability Innovation Institute, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pasquier L, Reyneke M, Beeckman L, Siermann M, Van Steijvoort E, Borry P. Attitudes of professional stakeholders towards implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 2023; 31:395-408. [PMID: 36631542 PMCID: PMC10133284 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-022-01274-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2022] [Revised: 11/27/2022] [Accepted: 12/15/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) for hundreds of different genetic conditions is technically available for prospective parents, but these tests have not been integrated in a public health policy except for specific sub-groups. We aimed to provide an overview of the perspectives of multiple professional stakeholder groups in order to enhance a responsible implementation of population-based reproductive genetic carrier screening. We conducted a systematic literature search using eight online databases focussing on studies that were published from January 2009 to January 2021. We selected articles dealing with attitudes and opinions from different professional stakeholders, in particular healthcare professionals and policymakers, on how to implement a policy about carrier screening for a reproductive purpose. We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Based on our inductive analysis, we identified ten themes categorized in both clinical and program management challenges: ensuring availability of RGCS to all couples who request the test, embedding RGCS as a test offer before pregnancy, providing clear and reliable information, ensuring voluntary participation, developing genetic counselling pre- and post-testing (after positive or negative result), avoiding psychological harm, ensuring equal access, avoiding social pressure, educating and involving a broad spectrum of non-genetic health care professionals, and promoting an independent non-commercial organisational structure. We highlight one major stumbling block on how to responsibly inform couples about hundreds different genetic conditions within constraints regarding time and ability of non-genetic professionals. We promote further research to tackle the issues brought up by this systematic review through pilot studies. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2021 # CRD42021233762; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=233762 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurent Pasquier
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
- Clinical genetics, Reference Center for Rares Diseases "Intellectual Disabilities", Rennes University Hospital, 35203, Rennes, France.
| | - Maryn Reyneke
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
- Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health, Ethics and Society GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Lauranne Beeckman
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Maria Siermann
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Eva Van Steijvoort
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Pascal Borry
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van den Heuvel LM, van den Berg N, Janssens ACJW, Birnie E, Henneman L, Dondorp WJ, Plantinga M, van Langen IM. Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review. Eur J Hum Genet 2023; 31:55-72. [PMID: 36097155 PMCID: PMC9822904 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-022-01178-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2022] [Revised: 07/08/2022] [Accepted: 08/15/2022] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Carrier screening aims to identify couples at risk of conceiving children with a recessive condition. Until recently, carrier screening was primarily offered ancestry-based. Technological advances now facilitate expanded universal carrier screening (EUCS). This scoping review aimed to map EUCS's potential societal implications based on both theoretical studies and empirical evidence. To this aim, we performed a CoCites search to find relevant articles, including articles describing carrier screening for at-risk populations, based on five selected query articles. Forty articles were included. Three main potential societal implications were identified: (1) unwanted medicalization, (2) stigmatization and discrimination of carriers and people affected with the conditions screened and (3) challenges in achieving equitable access. Within these themes, potential positive implications are reduction of ethnic stigmatization in ancestry-based offers and increased equity. Potential negative implications are reinforcement of disability-based stigmatization, less possibility for developing expertise in healthcare and societal pressure to partake in screening. Empirical evidence on all these implications is however scarce. In conclusion, both positive and negative potential societal implications of implementing EUCS, primarily theoretical, were identified, even in at-risk groups where evidence is mostly lacking. Empirical research in EUCS pilots is needed to identify which societal implications are likely to occur and therefore should be overcome when implementing EUCS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lieke M. van den Heuvel
- grid.4494.d0000 0000 9558 4598Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands ,grid.12380.380000 0004 1754 9227Department of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Reproduction and Development research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nina van den Berg
- grid.4494.d0000 0000 9558 4598Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands ,grid.12380.380000 0004 1754 9227Department of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Reproduction and Development research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A. Cecile J. W. Janssens
- grid.189967.80000 0001 0941 6502Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA USA
| | - Erwin Birnie
- grid.4494.d0000 0000 9558 4598Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Lidewij Henneman
- grid.12380.380000 0004 1754 9227Department of Human Genetics and Amsterdam Reproduction and Development research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Wybo J. Dondorp
- grid.5012.60000 0001 0481 6099Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Mirjam Plantinga
- grid.4494.d0000 0000 9558 4598Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Irene M. van Langen
- grid.4494.d0000 0000 9558 4598Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ukoha WC, Mtshali NG. Preconception Care Recommendations, Training, and Competency of Primary Healthcare Nurses in South Africa: A Quantitative Descriptive Study. SAGE Open Nurs 2023; 9:23779608231185924. [PMID: 37448974 PMCID: PMC10336751 DOI: 10.1177/23779608231185924] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2023] [Revised: 06/05/2023] [Accepted: 06/15/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction There has been a growing interest in preconception care (PCC) as a primary means of tackling the high maternal and child mortality rates, as evidence has shown that the state of maternal health before conception can have a direct impact on the health of the mother and baby. Primary care nurses have been recognized as the highest providers of sexual and reproductive healthcare to the vulnerable population in resource-constrained settings. Objective This study aimed to examine and describe the PCC recommendations, training, and competency of primary healthcare (PHC) nurses in South Africa. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among 196 PHC nurses to examine the PCC recommendations, training, and competency. A self-administered survey tool was used for data collection. Results The self-reported PCC recommendations, training, and competency of PHC nurses were 63.3%, 88.3%, and 94.9%, respectively, in each aspect. The PCC training among the respondents was mainly in-service training. The only training that was indicated to have been done primarily at a pre-service level was training about reproductive life plan screening and brief counseling. Over 20% of the respondents indicated that they did not receive any training on how to provide alcohol, drug, or tobacco cessation services and how to conduct preconception risk assessments. Conclusion Although PHC nurses reported a high level of recommendation, training, and competency, their level of reported PCC practice is not equivalent to their provision, as they rendered PCC services to fewer women, and they also reported fewer women seeking PCC. A future longitudinal study is required to examine the reason for low PCC-seeking habits among those at high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and contextual factors influencing the provision of PCC services among healthcare workers.
Collapse
|
6
|
The more you do it, the easier it gets: using behaviour change theory to support health care professionals offering reproductive genetic carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 31:430-444. [PMID: 36424524 PMCID: PMC9686264 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-022-01224-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2022] [Revised: 10/19/2022] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Recent advances in genomic sequencing have improved the accessibility of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). As awareness and interest grows, non-genetic health care professionals are increasingly offering RGCS to consumers. We conducted a qualitative interview study informed by behaviour change theory to identify influences on health care professionals considered as 'early adopters' offering RGCS through Mackenzie's Mission, an Australian national research study investigating the implementation of free RGCS to couple's preconception or in early pregnancy. Interviews were deductively analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to examine barriers and enabling factors. In total, we interviewed 31 health care professionals, who were primarily general practitioners (n = 23) offering RGCS through Mackenzie's Mission. Upon analysis, 15 barriers and 44 enablers to implementation were identified and categorised across three health care professional target behaviours 1. Engaging with RGCS, 2. Identifying eligible patients, and 3. Offering RGCS. Whilst all Theoretical Domains Framework domains were present, barriers were predominantly categorised as 'Environmental Context and Resources' e.g., lack of time, followed by 'Knowledge' e.g., lack of understanding about genetics and 'Beliefs about Capabilities' e.g., concern about giving high risk results to patients. Although health care professionals expressed a preference for offering RGCS through a comprehensive and supported model of care, such as Mackenzie's Mission, barriers remain. By understanding what drives current health care professionals' behaviour towards offering RGCS, behaviour change theory provides an avenue to direct future efforts based on evidence and improve service delivery.
Collapse
|
7
|
Best S, Long J, Theodorou T, Hatem S, Lake R, Archibald A, Freeman L, Braithwaite J. Health practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to the implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: A systematic review. Prenat Diagn 2021; 41:708-719. [PMID: 33533079 PMCID: PMC8252081 DOI: 10.1002/pd.5914] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2020] [Revised: 12/22/2020] [Accepted: 01/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Background As interest in reproductive genetic carrier screening rises, with increased availability, the role of healthcare practitioners is central in guiding uptake aligned with a couples' values and beliefs. Therefore, practitioners' views on implementation are critical to the success of any reproductive genetic carrier screening programme. Aim To explore healthcare practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to implementation. Materials & Methods We undertook a systematic review of the literature searching seven databases using health practitioner, screening and implementation terms returning 490 articles. Results Screening led to the inclusion of 26 articles for full‐text review. We found three interconnected themes relating to reproductive genetic carrier screening: (i) use and impact, (ii) practitioners' beliefs and expectations and (iii) resources. Discussion Barriers and enablers to implementation were present within each theme and grouping these determinants by (a) community for example lack of public interest, (b) practitioner for example lack of practitioner time and (c) organisation for example lack of effective metrics, reveals a preponderance of practitioner barriers and organisational enablers. Linking barriers with potential enablers leaves several barriers unresolved (e.g., costs for couples) implying additional interventions may be required. Conclusion Future research should draw on the findings from this study to develop and test strategies to facilitate appropriate offering of reproductive genetic carrier screening by healthcare practitioners. What is already known?Availability of reproductive genetic carrier screening is rising. Screening is often focused on ethnically specific conditions or for those with a family history of disease. Commonly, carriers do not have family history of disease.
What does this review add?Identifies practitioner barriers to implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening, for example, beliefs and expectations. Matches identified practitioner barriers to enablers to implementation. Highlights where additional implementation support is required, for example, lack of practitioner confidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Best
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Janet Long
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Tahlia Theodorou
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sarah Hatem
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rebecca Lake
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Alison Archibald
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Bruce Lefroy Centre, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lucinda Freeman
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospital Randwick, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Matar A, Höglund AT, Segerdahl P, Kihlbom U. Autonomous decisions by couples in reproductive care. BMC Med Ethics 2020; 21:30. [PMID: 32334575 PMCID: PMC7183638 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-020-00470-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2018] [Accepted: 04/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening (ECS) is a genetic test offered to a general population or to couples who have no known risk of recessive and X-linked genetic diseases and are interested in becoming parents. A test may screen for carrier status of several autosomal recessive diseases at one go. Such a program has been piloted in the Netherlands and may become a reality in more European countries in the future. The ethical rationale for such tests is that they enhance reproductive autonomy. The dominant conception of autonomy is individual-based. However, at the clinic, people deciding on preconception ECS will be counselled together and are expected to make a joint decision, as a couple. The aim of the present study was to develop an understanding of autonomous decisions made by couples in the context of reproductive technologies in general and of preconception ECS in particular. Further, to shed light on what occurs in reproductive clinics and suggest concrete implications for healthcare professionals. Main text Based on the shift in emphasis from individual autonomy to relational autonomy, a notion of couple autonomy was suggested and some features of this concept were outlined. First, that both partners are individually autonomous and that the decision is reached through a communicative process. In this process each partner should feel free to express his or her concerns and preferences, so no one partner dominates the discussion. Further, there should be adequate time for the couple to negotiate possible differences and conclude that the decision is right for them. The final decision should be reached through consensus of both partners without coercion, manipulation or miscommunication. Through concrete examples, the suggested notion of couple autonomy was applied to diverse clinical situations. Conclusions A notion of couple autonomy can be fruitful for healthcare professionals by structuring their attention to and support of a couple who is required to make an autonomous joint decision concerning preconception ECS. A normative implication for healthcare staff is to allow the necessary time for decision-making and to promote a dialogue that can increase the power of the weaker part in a relationship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amal Matar
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anna T Höglund
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden.
| | - Pär Segerdahl
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Ulrik Kihlbom
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Matar A, Hansson MG, Höglund AT. "A perfect society"- Swedish policymakers' ethical and social views on preconception expanded carrier screening. J Community Genet 2018; 10:267-280. [PMID: 30259298 PMCID: PMC6435768 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-018-0389-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2018] [Accepted: 09/11/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
To improve healthcare policymaking, commentators have recommended the use of evidence, health technology assessment, priority setting, and public engagement in the process of policymaking. Preconception expanded carrier screening, according to the World Health Organization's definition, is a novel health technology and therefore warrants assessment, part of which involves evaluating ethical and social implications. We examined ten Swedish policymakers' perspectives on ethical and social aspects of preconception expanded screening through in-depth expert interviewing, using a semi-structured questionnaire. Respondents were affiliated to governmental and non-governmental institutions that directly influence healthcare policymaking in Sweden. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed via inductive thematic analysis method, which generated seven themes and several subthemes. Policymakers harbored concerns regarding the economics, Swedish and international political respects, implementation procedures, and societal effects, which included long-term ones. Moreover, participants detailed the role of public engagement, research, and responsibility in regard to preconception expanded carrier screening implementation. Since this is a qualitative study, with a small non-random sample, the results may not be generalizable to all policymakers in Sweden. However, the results give a profound insight into the process and interpretative knowledge of experts, in the Swedish milieu and the extent of readiness of Sweden to implement a preconception expanded carrier screening program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amal Matar
- Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Center for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Box 564, SE-751 22, Uppsala, Sweden.
| | - Mats G Hansson
- Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Center for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Box 564, SE-751 22, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anna T Höglund
- Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Center for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Box 564, SE-751 22, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kraft SA, Duenas D, Wilfond BS, Goddard KAB. The evolving landscape of expanded carrier screening: challenges and opportunities. Genet Med 2018; 21:790-797. [PMID: 30245516 PMCID: PMC6752283 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0273-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2018] [Accepted: 08/06/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Carrier screening allows individuals to learn their chance of passing on an autosomal or X-linked condition to their offspring. Initially introduced as single-disease, ancestry-based screening, technological advances now allow for the possibility of multi-disease, pan-ethnic carrier screening, which we refer to as “expanded carrier screening.” There are numerous potential benefits to expanded carrier screening, including maximizing the opportunity for couples to make autonomous reproductive decisions, and efficiency and marginal additional costs of including more conditions if the test is already being offered. While numerous laboratories currently offer expanded carrier screening services, it is not yet commonly used in clinical practice, and there is a lack of consensus among experts about the service, including whether this should be offered to individuals and couples, whether this should be offered preconception or prenatally, and what conditions to include in screening programs. Challenges for expanded carrier screening programs include a lack of demand from the public, low prioritization by health systems, the potential for pressure to undergo screening, the possibility of disability-based discrimination, needed adaptations to pre- and post-test counseling, technical limitations, and the evolving technological and socio-political landscape.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie A Kraft
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.,Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Devan Duenas
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Benjamin S Wilfond
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.,Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Molster CM, Lister K, Metternick-Jones S, Baynam G, Clarke AJ, Straub V, Dawkins HJS, Laing N. Outcomes of an International Workshop on Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: Some Considerations for Governments. Front Public Health 2017; 5:25. [PMID: 28286745 PMCID: PMC5323409 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2016] [Accepted: 02/09/2017] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Consideration of expanded carrier screening has become an emerging issue for governments. However, traditional criteria for decision-making regarding screening programs do not incorporate all the issues relevant to expanded carrier screening. Further, there is a lack of consistent guidance in the literature regarding the development of appropriate criteria for government assessment of expanded carrier screening. Given this, a workshop was held to identify key public policy issues related to preconception expanded carrier screening, which governments should consider when deciding whether to publicly fund such programs. Methods In June 2015, a satellite workshop was held at the European Society of Human Genetics Conference. It was structured around two design features: (1) the provision of information from a range of perspectives and (2) small group deliberations on the key issues that governments need to consider and the benefits, risks, and challenges of implementing publicly funded whole-population preconception carrier screening. Results Forty-one international experts attended the workshop. The deliberations centered primarily on the conditions to be tested and the elements of the screening program itself. Participants expected only severe conditions to be screened but were concerned about the lack of a consensus definition of “severe.” Issues raised regarding the screening program included the purpose, benefits, harms, target population, program acceptability, components of a program, and economic evaluation. Participants also made arguments for consideration of the accuracy of screening tests. Conclusion A wide range of issues require careful consideration by governments that want to assess expanded carrier screening. Traditional criteria for government decision-making regarding screening programs are not a “best fit” for expanded carrier screening and new models of decision-making with appropriate criteria are required. There is a need to define what a “severe” condition is, to build evidence regarding the reliability and accuracy of screening tests, to consider the equitable availability and downstream effects on and costs of follow-up interventions for those identified as carriers, and to explore the ways in which the components of a screening program would be impacted by unique features of expanded carrier screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caron M Molster
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public Health Division, Department of Health Western Australia , Perth, WA , Australia
| | - Karla Lister
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public Health Division, Department of Health Western Australia , Perth, WA , Australia
| | | | - Gareth Baynam
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public Health Division, Department of Health Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Genetic Services WA, Perth, WA, Australia; School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Institute for Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia; Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Western Australian Register of Developmental Anomalies, Perth, WA, Australia; Spatial Sciences, Department of Science and Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Angus John Clarke
- Division of Cancer and Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University , Cardiff , UK
| | - Volker Straub
- Institute of Human Genetics, University of Newcastle upon Tyne , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK
| | - Hugh J S Dawkins
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public Health Division, Department of Health Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Centre for Comparative Genomics, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia; Centre for Population Health Research, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia; School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Nigel Laing
- Centre for Medical Research, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Neurogenetics Unit, Department of Diagnostic Genomics, PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Department of Health Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of genetic carrier screening in a changing landscape. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17:146. [PMID: 28209157 PMCID: PMC5314610 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2083-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2016] [Accepted: 02/09/2017] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Background In most countries, genetic carrier screening is neither offered, nor embedded in mainstream healthcare. Technological developments have triggered a two-fold transition in carrier screening: the expansion from screening one single disorder to many disorders simultaneously, and offering screening universally, regardless of ancestry. This study aims to identify general and population-specific barriers and needs reflected by stakeholders regarding the implementation of carrier screening in a changing landscape. Methods Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch key stakeholders working in the practical and scientific field of carrier screening. The constellation approach was used to categorise barriers and needs into three levels: culture, structure and practice. Results Barriers on a cultural level include: undecidedness about the desirability of carrier screening, and a lack of priority of screening in mainstream healthcare. On a structural level barriers included: need for organisational structures in healthcare for embedding carrier screening, need for guidelines, financial structures, practical tools for overcoming challenges during counselling, and a need for training and education of both professionals and the public. A lack of demand for screening by the public, and a need for a division of responsibilities were barriers on a practical level. Conclusion The absence of a collective sense of urgency for genetic carrier screening, a lack of organisational structures, and uncertainty or even disagreement about the responsibilities seem to be important barriers in the implementation of carrier screening. Stakeholders therefore suggest that change agents should be formally acknowledged to strategically plan broadening of current initiatives and attune different stakeholders. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2083-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
|