Attitudes regarding carrier testing in incompetent children: a survey of European clinical geneticists

Experiences of Women Who Have Had Carrier Testing for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Becker Muscular Dystrophy During Adolescence

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD) are X-linked recessive degenerative muscular conditions. Carrier testing is available to at-risk females. Though carrier testing is often offered to adolescent females, it raises ethical issues related to autonomy. This study aimed to address the impact of DMD/BMD carrier testing during adolescence, to elucidate what motivates adolescents to seek testing, and to assess the carrier testing experience. Retrospective semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 12 women out of 28 initially contacted. Data were coded using thematic analysis. For most (8/12) participants, discovering their carrier status during adolescence appeared to have helped alleviate uncertainty. The majority (9/12) of participants felt that they had made an autonomous decision and most (10/12) seemed to have adjusted well to their test result. Reproductive factors were framed as having been a key motivator prior to testing. However, following testing, participants’ views on prenatal diagnosis seemed more closely linked to their lived experience than to their test result. Just over half (7/12) the participants reported having not had the opportunity for genetic counseling prior to testing and after receiving their result, an issue that warrants further consideration.

"They Just Want to Know" - Genetic Health Professionals' Beliefs About Why Parents Want to Know their Child's Carrier Status

In the context of a child being diagnosed with a genetic condition, reports from both parents and health professionals suggest many genetic health professionals are reluctant to provide carrier testing for unaffected siblings, despite the lack of evidence of harm. We propose that genetic health professionals' understandings of why parents want to have their children tested may contribute to their reluctance to test. We draw on interviews with 17 genetic health professionals, reporting their beliefs about parents' motivations for testing and their intentions to communicate results to their children. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Genetic health professionals reported attributions that contrasted with reasons parents actually report. These disparities fall into two categories: 1) attributing reasons that parents do not themselves report (i.e. for reassurance about their child's health), and 2) not recognizing the reasons that parents actually do report for wanting testing (i.e. to communicate the information to their child). By identifying that genetic health professionals may be misattributing reasons to parents for desiring their child"s carrier status, they may be missing an opportunity to assist parents to make decisions that are in line with their values and the best interests of the family.

Legal approaches regarding health-care decisions involving minors: implications for next-generation sequencing

The development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are revolutionizing medical practice, facilitating more accurate, sophisticated and cost-effective genetic testing. NGS is already being implemented in the clinic assisting diagnosis and management of disorders with a strong heritable component. Although considerable attention has been paid to issues regarding return of incidental or secondary findings, matters of consent are less well explored. This is particularly important for the use of NGS in minors. Recent guidelines addressing genomic testing and screening of children and adolescents have suggested that as 'young children' lack decision-making capacity, decisions about testing must be conducted by a surrogate, namely their parents. This prompts consideration of the age at which minors can provide lawful consent to health-care interventions, and consequently NGS performed for diagnostic purposes. Here, we describe the existing legal approaches regarding the rights of minors to consent to health-care interventions, including how laws in the 28 Member States of the European Union and in Canada consider competent minors, and then apply this to the context of NGS. There is considerable variation in the rights afforded to minors across countries. Many legal systems determine that minors would be allowed, or may even be required, to make decisions about interventions such as NGS. However, minors are often considered as one single homogeneous population who always require parental consent, rather than recognizing there are different categories of 'minors' and that capacity to consent or to be involved in discussions and decision-making process is a spectrum rather than a hurdle.

Why Do Parents Want to Know their Child's Carrier Status? A Qualitative Study

When a child is identified with a genetic condition, some parents want to know the carrier status of their other children. There has been little exploration of why parents want this information. To address this question, semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of 32 children with cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy who wanted to know the carrier status of their other children. Data was analyzed using inductive content analysis. Parents expressed a range of reasons for desiring their child's carrier status, which fell into two broad categories: 1) benefit for the parents and 2) perceived benefit to the child. Parents discussed the desire for certainty and peace of mind derived from having knowledge of their child's status. The most commonly expressed reason for wanting to know their child's carrier status was in order to communicate the information to their child to provide them with the ability to make informed reproductive decisions. These reasons suggest parents are seeking their children's carrier information both as a coping strategy and to communicate carrier information as part of their role as a parent. This has important implications for genetic counseling practice, especially as international guidelines generally recommend against carrier testing in children.

Parents' experiences with requesting carrier testing for their unaffected children

PURPOSE

International guidelines generally recommend delaying genetic carrier testing in children until the child reaches the age of majority or is mature enough to be involved in the decision. Several studies have shown that carrier testing of children does occur in some instances, particularly in siblings of a child affected with a genetic condition. However, little research has explored parents' experiences with the testing process, the impact of knowing a child's carrier status, and whether parents communicate carrier information to their children.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 33 parents of children who had one of three genetic conditions (cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy). Inductive content analysis was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Eight distinct pathways to carrier testing were distinguishable. While some parents had requested testing, others had been offered testing and some had received carrier results incidentally following testing to exclude affected status. Some parents were discouraged from testing, which led to frustration. Overall, 67% of the parents had received carrier results for at least one child, and parents were happy to have results, even if their children were carriers.

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations against carrier testing, this study provides evidence of varying practices and highlights a need to review the guidelines.Genet Med 18 12, 1199-1205.

Carrier testing in children and adolescents

Many international guidelines recommend that carrier testing in minors should be postponed either until the age of majority or until the child can be actively involved in the decision making process. Although a number of high school programs exist which provide carrier screening to adolescents in at-risk populations, recent guidelines published by the American Society of Human Genetics do not advocate this testing. Despite this, there are some circumstances in which carrier testing does occur in minors. This testing might be intentional, in which identification of carrier status is the goal of the test, or unintentional, where carrier status is identified as a by-product of testing. In this review we outline the situations in which carriers may be identified in childhood and the positions of professional guidelines that address carrier testing in children. We then review the arguments for and against carrier testing presented in the literature and compare this to the empirical evidence in this field.

A qualitative study to explore how professionals in the United Kingdom make decisions to test children for a sickle cell carrier status

European guidelines recommend that, unless there are clear benefits of autosomal recessive carrier testing in childhood, it should be deferred to protect children's autonomous decision making. Although it is believed that children receive testing in the United Kingdom, it is unclear how or why professionals make decisions to provide tests. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 professionals in the United Kingdom who advise about, and undertake, childhood sickle cell trait testing. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Few professionals were aware of, or used, guidelines to inform testing decisions and instead, considered the reproductive and clinical relevance of testing, and autonomous rights of parents. Many professionals believed testing was important and readily offered it to parents. Professionals who discouraged testing were met with parental resistance and often provided testing when conflict was difficult to manage. Children were rarely considered to be capable of making decisions and few were engaged in discussions. When consulted, older children demonstrated interest, but younger children usually declined testing. Wide variation in testing advice emerged because of opposing beliefs about children's best interests and potential benefits or harms of testing. An explanation of how children's best interests should be determined in light of conflicting evidence regarding the psychosocial and clinical implications of carrier status is needed. Improved awareness of guidelines might encourage professionals to support the role of children in testing decisions. Strategies are also required to help professionals determine children's cognitive capacity and to protect children's future autonomy during discussions with persistent parents.

Genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions: opinions of the British adult population and implications for clinical practice

This study set out to explore the attitudes of a representative sample of the British public towards genetic testing in children to predict disease in the future. We sought opinions about genetic testing for adult-onset conditions for which no prevention/treatment is available during childhood, and about genetic ‘carrier' status to assess future reproductive risks. The study also examined participants' level of agreement with the reasons professional organisations give in favour of deferring such testing. Participants (n=2998) completed a specially designed questionnaire, distributed by email. Nearly half of the sample (47%) agreed that parents should be able to test their child for adult-onset conditions, even if there is no treatment or prevention at time of testing. This runs contrary to professional guidance about genetic testing in children. Testing for carrier status was supported by a larger proportion (60%). A child's future ability to decide for her/himself if and when to be tested was the least supported argument in favour of deferring testing.

Disparities in current and future childhood and newborn carrier identification

International carrier testing guidelines discourage testing in childhood to preserve autonomous decision making and prevent detrimental psychosocial consequences. Despite the discouragement of autosomal recessive carrier testing during childhood, some sickle cell disease (SCD) or cystic fibrosis (CF) carriers are incidentally identified through UK and international newborn screening (NBS). This creates a scenario where parents may have knowledge of their newborn's, but not older child's carrier status. In addition, there is wide variation in the identification of CF and SCD carriers due to the screening technologies implemented by different NBS programs. The current and future availability of childhood testing are determined to some extent by the impact of testing on children and parents (whether this is beneficial or detrimental to wellbeing). However empirical research informing carrier guidance and practice is conflicting. Echoing previous calls, this discussion highlights the need for further qualitative and longitudinal research with children to consider the psychosocial impact of carrier testing on children and role of disclosure from parents on adaptation to results. It is recommended that professionals aim to minimize harms resulting from carrier identification by providing support for parents and children following NBS. Support for non-genetics specialists from genetic counselors to enable discussion of carrier results with children is suggested.

Survey of European clinical geneticists on awareness, experiences and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing

BACKGROUND

The advent of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) has sparked a number of debates regarding the scientific validity of tests, their broad health and ethical implications for society as well as their legal status. To date, relatively few empirical studies have been published regarding this phenomenon. We conducted a survey of European clinical geneticists to gauge their awareness of, experiences with, and attitudes towards DTC GT.

METHODS

We invited 300 clinical geneticists from 28 European countries to complete an online questionnaire. Statistical analyses of closed-ended questions were performed using the STATISTICA software package. Answers to open-ended questions were analysed for recurring themes.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-one clinical geneticists answered our survey (response rate, 44%). Eighty-six percent (110/128) of respondents were aware of DTC GT, and over one-third had been contacted by at least one patient regarding these services. The majority (84%) of respondents did not agree with telephone medical supervision outside of an established doctor-patient relationship. The majority of clinical geneticists also found it unacceptable to provide non-face-to-face medical supervision for: (i) a presymptomatic test for a condition with very high penetrance; (ii) a predictive test for a condition that has a 'medium' penetrance of 50% to 60%; and (iii) carrier testing. For conditions that are neither treatable nor preventable and for disorders with serious health consequences, clinical geneticists were almost unanimous in expressing the unacceptability of offering such genetic tests outside of the traditional healthcare setting, without an established physician-patient relationship and without face-to-face medical supervision.

CONCLUSION

A high percentage of European clinical geneticists are aware of DTC GT and the majority do not agree with the model of provision used by many commercial companies for certain severe or actionable health conditions. Despite this disagreement with the DTC model of provision, >85% of respondents said that they would offer genetic counselling to patients who asked for a consultation after having undergone DTC genetic testing. The understanding of the views and opinions of this expert stakeholder group should be considered in the attempts to shape responsible policy and guidelines for these services.

Quality in genetic counselling for presymptomatic testing--clinical guidelines for practice across the range of genetic conditions

Presymptomatic testing (PST) is the performance of a genetic test on an asymptomatic individual at risk of a condition to determine whether the person has inherited the disease-causing mutation. Although relevant guidelines exist for specific diseases, there is no overarching protocol that can be adapted to any disorder or clinical setting in which such testing is offered. The objective of this European project was to develop a set of coherent guidelines for PST (for adult-onset monogenic conditions) for use by health professionals working in a range of disciplines, countries or contexts. To ensure the guidelines were appropriate and practice based, we organised a workshop attended by an expert group of practitioners with relevant health professional backgrounds from 11 countries. Models of service for offering PST were presented, the group then discussed different aspects of testing and the standard of care required to ensure that patients were prepared to make decisions and deal with results and consequences. After the workshop, several rounds of consultation were used with a wider group of professionals to refine the guidelines. The guidelines include general principles governing the offer of testing (eg, autonomous choice of the patient), objectives of genetic counselling in this context (eg, facilitation of decision making), logistical considerations (eg, use of trained staff) and topics to be included during counselling discussion with the patient (eg, consequences of both positive and negative outcomes). We recommend the adoption of these guidelines to provide an equitable structure for those seeking PST in any country.

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing

Genetics has fascinated societies since ancient times, and references to traits or behaviors that appear to be shared or different among related individuals have permeated legends, literature, and popular culture. Biomedical advances from the past century, and particularly the discovery of the DNA double helix, the increasing numbers of links that were established between mutations and medical conditions or phenotypes, and technological advances that facilitated the sequencing of the human genome, catalyzed the development of genetic testing. Genetic tests were initially performed in health care facilities, interpreted by health care providers, and included the availability of counseling. Recent years have seen an increased availability of genetic tests that are offered by companies directly to consumers, a phenomenon that became known as direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Tests offered in this setting range from the ones that are also provided in health care establishments to tests known as ‘recreational genomics,’ and consumers directly receive the test results. In addition, testing in this context often does not involve the availability of counseling and, when this is provided, it frequently occurs on-line or over the phone. As a field situated at the interface between biotechnology, biomedical research, and social sciences, direct-to-consumer genetic testing opens multiple challenges that can be appropriately addressed only by developing a complex, inter-disciplinary framework.

A qualitative study exploring genetic counsellors' experiences of counselling children

The identification of healthy carriers by newborn screening programmes raises questions about how and when the carrier results will be conveyed to child. There is currently a lack of information concerning how best to convey carrier information to children. This is a serious gap in the literature and practice. This study examined genetic counsellors' experiences of counselling children to explore how to support and inform children about their carrier result. Practising members of the United Kingdom (UK) Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. Respondents described the communication process and identified barriers and facilitators of communication. Age, illness experience and maturity were variously discussed as facilitators; all of which are integral to psychological theories of children's understanding of illness. Adaptive family communication, school tuition and educational materials were also seen as influencing counselling efficacy. Relevant materials that children could keep were also seen as important to enhance children's autonomy. Yet, such resources were rare, constituting a barrier to communication. Counsellors reported communication was further impeded by maladaptive family communication and resistance from children to engaging in counselling. By exploring the facilitators and barriers inherent in communicating genetic information to children, guidance can be offered to counsellors, researchers and parents. This study indicates that some factors (eg illness experiences) previously identified by psychological theories may act in complex ways within this setting. Importantly, the factors identified as being most influential when communicating with children about genetics are amenable to change through interventions, support and training.

Genetic counseling and genetic testing in ophthalmology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To introduce the issues specific to the genetic counseling profession for genetic eye diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

To discuss current issues in ocular genetic counseling including the use of a focused ophthalmology pedigree, informed consent in the blind population, genetic testing trends and psychosocial issues.

SUMMARY

Introduce the time-consuming issues to be addressed in genetic counseling for genetic eye disease patients.

When to tell and test for genetic carrier status: perspectives of adolescents and young adults from fragile X families

We report here on our findings from adolescent and young adult females (ages 14-25) with a family history of fragile X syndrome regarding their perceptions of the optimal ages for (1) learning fragile X is inherited, (2) learning one could be a carrier for fragile X, and (3) offering carrier testing for fragile X. Three groups were enrolled: those who knew they were carriers or noncarriers and those who knew only they were at-risk to be a carrier. Only 2 of the 53 participants felt that offering carrier testing should be delayed until the age of 18 years. Participants who knew only that they were at-risk to be a carrier provided older optimal ages for offering carrier testing than those who knew their actual carrier status. Participants did not express regret or negative emotions about the timing of the disclosure of genetic risk information regarding their own experiences. Participants' reasoning behind reported ages for informing about genetic risk and offering carrier testing varied depending on what type of information was being disclosed, which carrier status group the participant belonged to, and the preferred age for learning the information. Study findings suggest that decisions regarding the timing to inform about genetic risk and offer testing should be tailored to the individual needs of the child and his/her family.

Genetic testing in asymptomatic minors: background considerations towards ESHG Recommendations

Although various guidelines and position papers have discussed, in the past, the ethical aspects of genetic testing in asymptomatic minors, the European Society of Human Genetics had not earlier endorsed any set of guidelines exclusively focused on this issue. This paper has served as a background document in preparation of the development of the policy recommendations of the Public and Professional Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics. This background paper first discusses some general considerations with regard to the provision of genetic tests to minors. It discusses the concept of best interests, participation of minors in health-care decisions, parents' responsibilities to share genetic information, the role of clinical genetics and the health-care system in communication within the family. Second, it discusses, respectively, the presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing for adult-onset disorders, childhood-onset disorders and carrier testing.

Professional ambivalence: accounts of ethical practice in childhood genetic testing

Childhood genetic testing raises complex ethical and moral dilemmas for both families and professionals. In the family sphere, the role of communication is a key aspect in the transmission of 'genetic responsibility' between adults and children. In the professional sphere, genetic responsibility is an interactional accomplishment emerging from the sometimes competing views over what constitutes the 'best interests' of the child in relation to parental preferences on the one hand, and professional judgements on the other. In the present paper we extend our previous research into parental accounts of childhood genetic testing and explore the ethical accounts of professionals in research interviews. Interviews (n = 20) were conducted with professional practitioners involved in the genetic diagnosis and management of children and their families. We first identify four inter-related themes-juxtaposition of parental rights vis-à-vis child's autonomy, elicitation of the child's autonomy, avoidance of parental responsibility and recognition of professional uncertainty. Then, using Rhetorical Discourse Analysis, we examine the range of discourse devices through which ethical accounts are situationally illustrated: contrast, reported speech, constructed dialogue, character and event work. An overarching device in these ethical accounts is the use of extreme case scenarios, which reconstruct dilemmas as justifications of professional conduct. While acknowledging ambivalence, our analysis suggests that professional judgement is not a simple matter of implementing ethical principles but rather of managing the practical conditions and consequences of interactions with parents and children. We conclude that more attention is needed to understand the way professional practitioners formulate judgements about ethical practice.