1
|
Laberge AM. From Community-Based Carrier Programs to Opportunistic Carrier Screening: How the Objective of Carrier Screening Was Lost in Translation. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2023; 23:123-126. [PMID: 37339295 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2023.2207520] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/22/2023]
|
2
|
Dive L, Newson AJ. Ethics of Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: From the Clinic to the Population. Public Health Ethics 2021; 14:202-217. [PMID: 34650621 PMCID: PMC8510688 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phab017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RCS) is increasingly being offered more widely, including to people with no family history or otherwise elevated chance of having a baby with a genetic condition. There are valid reasons to reject a prevention-focused public health ethics approach to such screening programs. Rejecting the prevention paradigm in this context has led to an emphasis on more individually-focused values of freedom of choice and fostering reproductive autonomy in RCS. We argue, however, that population-wide RCS has sufficient features in common with other public health screening programs that it becomes important also to attend to its public health implications. Not doing so constitutes a failure to address the social conditions that significantly affect people's capacity to exercise their reproductive autonomy. We discuss how a public health ethics approach to RCS is broader in focus than prevention. We also show that additional values inherent to ethical public health-such as equity and solidarity-are essential to underpin and inform the aims and implementation of reproductive carrier screening programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Dive
- Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Conijn T, Nijmeijer SCM, Lakeman P, Henneman L, Wijburg FA, Haverman L. Preconception expanded carrier screening: Impact of information presented by text or video on genetic knowledge and attitudes. J Genet Couns 2021; 30:457-469. [PMID: 32940388 PMCID: PMC8048558 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1332] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2020] [Revised: 08/18/2020] [Accepted: 08/20/2020] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
Preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS) aims to identify couples with an increased risk of having a child with an autosomal recessive (AR) disorder before pregnancy, thereby enabling reproductive choices. Genetic knowledge and experiential knowledge both influence the uptake of ECS. As people in the general public often lack such knowledge, it is essential to provide appropriate and understandable information when offering ECS. This study investigated the effect of an educational video, compared to an educational text, on the knowledge and attitudes toward preconception ECS in the general population. Both the text and video consisted of a brief educational summary on AR inheritance and on the type of disorders included in ECS, with the progressive neurodegenerative condition mucopolysaccharidosis type III (MPS III) as an example. Participants in the reproductive age were invited in collaboration with a research agency. Respondents (N = 789) were offered an educational video prior to completing an online questionnaire that examined genetic knowledge, the perceived severity of MPS III, perceived risk, and attitudes toward ECS. Outcomes were compared to reference data collected previously in which respondents had been offered an educational text (N = 781). We first again studied the attitudes toward ECS in a smaller educational text group (N = 266) in order to assess whether attitudes had changed over time due to increased media coverage on ECS, which did not reveal any significant changes. Respondents who were offered the video had a better genetic knowledge, perceived MPS III as more severe, perceived their risks higher and were more likely to participate in ECS compared to those who were offered text. Online video may well be used as supportive tool to the genetic counseling process, creating more knowledge on ECS and severe genetic disorders included in preconception screening panels.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thirsa Conijn
- Pediatric Metabolic DiseasesEmma Children's Hospital and Amsterdam Lysosome Center “Sphinx”Amsterdam UMCUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
- Psychosocial departmentEmma Children's HospitalAmsterdam UMC, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
| | - Stephanie C. M. Nijmeijer
- Pediatric Metabolic DiseasesEmma Children's Hospital and Amsterdam Lysosome Center “Sphinx”Amsterdam UMCUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
| | - Phillis Lakeman
- Department of Clinical GeneticsAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research InstituteAmsterdam UMCUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
| | - Lidewij Henneman
- Department of Clinical GeneticsAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research InstituteAmsterdam UMCVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
| | - Frits A. Wijburg
- Pediatric Metabolic DiseasesEmma Children's Hospital and Amsterdam Lysosome Center “Sphinx”Amsterdam UMCUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
| | - Lotte Haverman
- Psychosocial departmentEmma Children's HospitalAmsterdam UMC, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Clinical Implementation of Expanded Carrier Screening in Pregnant Women at Early Gestational Weeks: A Chinese Cohort Study. Genes (Basel) 2021; 12:genes12040496. [PMID: 33805278 PMCID: PMC8066122 DOI: 10.3390/genes12040496] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2021] [Revised: 03/15/2021] [Accepted: 03/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Demands for expanded carrier screening (ECS) are growing and ECS is becoming an important part of obstetrics practice and reproductive planning. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of a small-size ECS panel in clinical implementation and investigate Chinese couples’ attitudes towards ECS. An ECS panel containing 11 recessive conditions was offered to Chinese pregnant women below 16 gestational weeks. Sequential testing of their partners was recommended for women with a positive carrier status. The reproductive decision and pregnancy outcome were surveyed for at-risk couples. A total of 1321 women performed ECS successfully and the overall carrier rate was 19.23%. The estimated at-risk couple rate was 0.83%. Sequential testing was performed in less than half of male partners. Eight at-risk couples were identified and four of them performed prenatal diagnosis. Our study demonstrated that a small-size ECS panel could yield comparable clinical value to a larger-size panel when the carrier rate of the individual condition is equal or greater than 1%. In addition, more than half of male partners whose wives were carriers declined any types of sequential testing possibly due to a lack of awareness and knowledge of genetic disorders. Genetic education is warranted for the better implementation of ECS.
Collapse
|
5
|
|
6
|
Nijmeijer SCM, Conijn T, Lakeman P, Henneman L, Wijburg FA, Haverman L. Attitudes of relatives of mucopolysaccharidosis type III patients toward preconception expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet 2020; 28:1331-1340. [PMID: 32483342 PMCID: PMC7609293 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-0648-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2020] [Accepted: 04/28/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS) aims to detect carrier couples of autosomal recessive (AR) disorders before pregnancy in order to increase reproductive autonomy of prospective parents. Genetic knowledge and knowledge gained from experience influence decision making on participation in genetic testing and understanding carrier test results. In this study we assessed whether parents and relatives of patients with the severe AR condition mucopolysaccharidosis type III (MPS III), who are expected to have genetic and experiential knowledge, have more positive attitudes toward ECS than the Dutch reference group. Parents of all MPS III patients known to the Dutch expert center were invited to participate and asked to invite first and second degree relatives. The online questionnaire started with an educational text, and assessed attitudes toward ECS, genetic knowledge and perceived MPS III severity. Results were compared with the Dutch population. Parents and relatives of MPS III patients (n = 159) scored higher on the genetic knowledge test and perceived MPS III as more severe compared with the general Dutch population (n = 781). Parents and relatives reported to be more likely to participate in ECS (84.3% and 62.5%, respectively) compared with the public (31%) (p < 0.001). Being a relative of a MPS III patient was the strongest variable in the regression analyses for intended ECS participation. Our results show that genetic knowledge influences ECS decision making. Therefore, appropriate information on ECS and genetic counseling is needed to enable prospective parents from the general population, including relatives of patients with severe hereditary disorders, to make informed decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie C M Nijmeijer
- Amsterdam UMC, Pediatric Metabolic Diseases, Emma Children's Hospital and Amsterdam Lysosome Center "Sphinx", University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Thirsa Conijn
- Amsterdam UMC, Pediatric Metabolic Diseases, Emma Children's Hospital and Amsterdam Lysosome Center "Sphinx", University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam UMC, Psychosocial Department, Emma Children's Hospital, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Phillis Lakeman
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lidewij Henneman
- Amsterdam UMC, Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frits A Wijburg
- Amsterdam UMC, Pediatric Metabolic Diseases, Emma Children's Hospital and Amsterdam Lysosome Center "Sphinx", University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Lotte Haverman
- Amsterdam UMC, Psychosocial Department, Emma Children's Hospital, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ong R, Edwards S, Howting D, Kamien B, Harrop K, Ravenscroft G, Davis M, Fietz M, Pachter N, Beilby J, Laing N. Study protocol of a multicentre cohort pilot study implementing an expanded preconception carrier-screening programme in metropolitan and regional Western Australia. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e028209. [PMID: 31209093 PMCID: PMC6589024 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028209] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Preconception carrier screening (PCS) identifies couples at risk of having children with recessive genetic conditions. New technologies have enabled affordable sequencing for multiple disorders simultaneously, including identifying carrier status for many recessive diseases. The aim of the study was to identify the most effective way of delivering PCS in Western Australia (WA) through the public health system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This is a multicentre cohort pilot study of 250 couples who have used PCS, conducted at three sites: (1) Genetic Services of Western Australia, (2) a private genetic counselling practice in Perth and (3) participating general practice group practices in the Busselton region of WA. The primary outcome of the pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the comprehensive PCS programme in the WA healthcare system. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of the psychosocial impact of couples, such as reproductive autonomy; identification of areas within the health system that had difficulties in implementing the programme and evaluation of tools developed during the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Approval was provided by the Women and Newborn Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women (RGS0000000946) and the University of Western Australia (UWA) HREC (RA/4/20/4258). Participants may choose to withdraw at any time. Withdrawal will in no way affect participating couples' medical care. Study couples will be redirected to another participating health professional for consultation or counselling in the event of a health professional withdrawing. All evaluation data will be deidentified and stored in a password-protected database in UWA. In addition, all hard copy data collected will be kept in a locked cabinet within a secure building. All electronic data will be stored in a password-protected, backed-up location in the UWA Institutional Research Data Store. All evaluative results will be published as separate manuscripts, and selected results will be presented at conferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Royston Ong
- Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Molecular Medicine Division, Neurogenetic Diseases Laboratory, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Samantha Edwards
- Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Molecular Medicine Division, Neurogenetic Diseases Laboratory, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Denise Howting
- Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Molecular Medicine Division, Neurogenetic Diseases Laboratory, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Benjamin Kamien
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women Perth, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Karen Harrop
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women Perth, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Gianina Ravenscroft
- Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Molecular Medicine Division, Neurogenetic Diseases Laboratory, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Mark Davis
- PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Michael Fietz
- PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
- Illumina Inc, Scoresby, Victoria, Australia
| | - Nicholas Pachter
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women Perth, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
| | - John Beilby
- PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Nigel Laing
- Centre for Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
- Molecular Medicine Division, Neurogenetic Diseases Laboratory, Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Horton RH, Lucassen AM. Recent developments in genetic/genomic medicine. Clin Sci (Lond) 2019; 133:697-708. [PMID: 30837331 PMCID: PMC6399103 DOI: 10.1042/cs20180436] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2018] [Revised: 11/21/2018] [Accepted: 02/27/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Advances in genetic technology are having a major impact in the clinic, and mean that many perceptions of the role and scope of genetic testing are having to change. Genomic testing brings with it a greater opportunity for diagnosis, or predictions of future diagnoses, but also an increased chance of uncertain or unexpected findings, many of which may have impacts for multiple members of a person's family. In the past, genetic testing was rarely able to provide rapid results, but the increasing speed and availability of genomic testing is changing this, meaning that genomic information is increasingly influencing decisions around patient care in the acute inpatient setting. The landscape of treatment options for genetic conditions is shifting, which has evolving implications for clinical discussions around previously untreatable disorders. Furthermore, the point of access to testing is changing with increasing provision direct to the consumer outside the formal healthcare setting. This review outlines the ways in which genetic medicine is developing in light of technological advances.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel H Horton
- Clinical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Anneke M Lucassen
- Clinical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Burns BL, Bilkey GA, Coles EP, Bowman FL, Beilby JP, Pachter NS, Baynam G, Dawkins HJS, Weeramanthri TS, Nowak KJ. Healthcare System Priorities for Successful Integration of Genomics: An Australian Focus. Front Public Health 2019; 7:41. [PMID: 30915324 PMCID: PMC6421399 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2018] [Accepted: 02/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper examines key considerations for the successful integration of genomic technologies into healthcare systems. All healthcare systems strive to introduce new technologies that are effective and affordable, but genomics offers particular challenges, given the rapid evolution of the technology. In this context we frame internationally relevant discussion points relating to effective and sustainable implementation of genomic testing within the strategic priority areas of the recently endorsed Australian National Health Genomics Policy Framework. The priority areas are services, data, workforce, finances, and person-centred care. In addition, we outline recommendations from a government perspective through the lens of the Australian health system, and argue that resources should be allocated not to just genomic testing alone, but across the five strategic priority areas for full effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Belinda L. Burns
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Gemma A. Bilkey
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Office of the Chief Health Officer, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Emily P. Coles
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Faye L. Bowman
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - John P. Beilby
- PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Nicholas S. Pachter
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Gareth Baynam
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
- Western Australian Register of Developmental Anomalies, Department of Health, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Government of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
| | - Hugh J. S. Dawkins
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
- Sir Walter Murdoch School of Policy and International Affairs, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia
- School of Public Health, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, WA, Australia
| | - Tarun S. Weeramanthri
- Office of the Chief Health Officer, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Kristen J. Nowak
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
- Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, QEII Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Expanded genetic carrier screening in clinical practice: a current survey of patient impressions and attitudes. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019; 36:709-716. [PMID: 30761454 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01414-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2018] [Accepted: 01/28/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Expanded genetic carrier screening (ECS) is an important part of gynecological practice and preconception planning. We evaluated the awareness and attitudes among women regarding ECS and factors that may influence decision-making in a family planning context. METHODS A 32-question survey in an academic university practice was given to 521 women who were either currently pregnant (n = 108), undergoing gynecologic care who were considering future fertility (n = 308), and considering or receiving fertility treatment (n = 105). Data are reported descriptively. RESULTS Forty-seven percent (n = 246) of patients were aware of ECS. Though most reported feeling positive or neutral towards ECS, 51% (n = 263) reported no desire for testing. Fifty-eight percent (n = 303) felt it beneficial to know their carrier status, and 55% (n = 257) said it was their responsibility to undergo testing. Those considering future fertility were found to have a more positive attitude towards ECS (51.4%) than those considering or receiving fertility treatment (34%). For positive carriers of a genetic disorder, 228 (49%) of patients would proceed with having their partner screened, 58 (13%) would undergo prenatal screening only and 12 (2.6%) would continue with vitro fertilization (IVF). Related to cost for ECS, 53.5% (n = 191) would be willing to pay at least $50-100 for testing, while 29% (n = 146) would not pay anything out of pocket. CONCLUSIONS Despite patients' beliefs that it would be beneficial and their responsibility to undergo carrier status testing, the majority reported no desire for ECS and many were unwilling to pay out of pocket. Further education is necessary to reconcile the gap between technology and patient decision-making.
Collapse
|
11
|
Holtkamp KCA, Henneman L, Gille JJP, Meijers-Heijboer H, Cornel MC, Lakeman P. Direct-to-consumer carrier screening for cystic fibrosis via a hospital website: a 6-year evaluation. J Community Genet 2018; 10:249-257. [PMID: 30229537 PMCID: PMC6435772 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-018-0388-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2018] [Accepted: 09/11/2018] [Indexed: 10/28/2022] Open
Abstract
A Dutch university hospital started offering cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier screening directly to consumers (DTC) through their website in 2010. A 6-year process evaluation was conducted to evaluate the offer. Screening was implemented as intended. However, uptake was lower than expected. Forty-four tests have been requested, partly by couples with a positive family history for CF, which was not the intended target group. Users were generally positive about the screening offer, citing accessibility, ease of testing, anonymity, and perceived shortcomings of regular healthcare as reasons for requesting screening. DTC CF carrier screening via a university hospital website is feasible, but is seldom used. Considering technological advances, continuation of this specific offer is questionable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kim C A Holtkamp
- Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lidewij Henneman
- Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. .,Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. .,Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Johan J P Gille
- Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanne Meijers-Heijboer
- Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Martina C Cornel
- Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Phillis Lakeman
- Amsterdam Reproduction and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Mathijssen IB, Holtkamp KCA, Ottenheim CPE, van Eeten-Nijman JMC, Lakeman P, Meijers-Heijboer H, van Maarle MC, Henneman L. Preconception carrier screening for multiple disorders: evaluation of a screening offer in a Dutch founder population. Eur J Hum Genet 2018; 26:166-175. [PMID: 29321671 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0056-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2017] [Revised: 10/08/2017] [Accepted: 11/13/2017] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Inge B Mathijssen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Kim C A Holtkamp
- Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cecile P E Ottenheim
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Phillis Lakeman
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanne Meijers-Heijboer
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Merel C van Maarle
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lidewij Henneman
- Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Harper JC, Aittomäki K, Borry P, Cornel MC, de Wert G, Dondorp W, Geraedts J, Gianaroli L, Ketterson K, Liebaers I, Lundin K, Mertes H, Morris M, Pennings G, Sermon K, Spits C, Soini S, van Montfoort APA, Veiga A, Vermeesch JR, Viville S, Macek M. Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications. Eur J Hum Genet 2018; 26:12-33. [PMID: 29199274 PMCID: PMC5839000 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0016-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2017] [Accepted: 09/14/2017] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Two leading European professional societies, the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, have worked together since 2004 to evaluate the impact of fast research advances at the interface of assisted reproduction and genetics, including their application into clinical practice. In September 2016, the expert panel met for the third time. The topics discussed highlighted important issues covering the impacts of expanded carrier screening, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, voiding of the presumed anonymity of gamete donors by advanced genetic testing, advances in the research of genetic causes underlying male and female infertility, utilisation of massively parallel sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal screening, mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes, and additionally, issues related to cross-generational epigenetic inheritance following IVF and germline genome editing. The resulting paper represents a consensus of both professional societies involved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J C Harper
- Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - K Aittomäki
- Laboratory of Genetics, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - P Borry
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M C Cornel
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Section Community Genetics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G de Wert
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - W Dondorp
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - J Geraedts
- Department Genetics and Cell Biology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - L Gianaroli
- S.I.S.Me.R. Reproductive Medicine Unit, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - I Liebaers
- Center for Medical Genetics, UZ Brussels, Brussels, Belgium
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
| | - K Lundin
- Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - H Mertes
- Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - M Morris
- Synlab Genetics, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - G Pennings
- Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - K Sermon
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
| | - C Spits
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
| | - S Soini
- Helsinki Biobank, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - A P A van Montfoort
- IVF Laboratory, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - A Veiga
- Barcelona Stem Cell Bank, Centre of Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Barcelona, Spain
- Reproductive Medicine Service of Dexeus Woman Health, Barcelona, Spain
| | - J R Vermeesch
- Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - S Viville
- Institute of Parasitology and Pathology, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
- Laboratory of Genetic Diagnostics, UF3472-Genetics of Infertility, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France
| | - M Macek
- Department of Biology and Medical Genetics, Charles University-2nd Faculty of Medicine and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Harper JC, Aittomäki K, Borry P, Cornel MC, de Wert G, Dondorp W, Geraedts J, Gianaroli L, Ketterson K, Liebaers I, Lundin K, Mertes H, Morris M, Pennings G, Sermon K, Spits C, Soini S, van Montfoort APA, Veiga A, Vermeesch JR, Viville S, Macek M. Recent developments in genetics and medically-assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications †‡. Hum Reprod Open 2017; 2017:hox015. [PMID: 31486804 PMCID: PMC6276693 DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hox015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2017] [Accepted: 11/14/2017] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Two leading European professional societies, the European Society of Human Genetics and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, have worked together since 2004 to evaluate the impact of fast research advances at the interface of assisted reproduction and genetics, including their application into clinical practice. In September 2016, the expert panel met for the third time. The topics discussed highlighted important issues covering the impacts of expanded carrier screening, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, voiding of the presumed anonymity of gamete donors by advanced genetic testing, advances in the research of genetic causes underlying male and female infertility, utilisation of massively-parallel sequencing in preimplantation genetic testing and non-invasive prenatal screening, mitochondrial replacement in human oocytes, and additionally, issues related to cross-generational epigenetic inheritance following IVF and germline genome editing. The resulting paper represents a consensus of both professional societies involved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J C Harper
- Institute for Women's Health, University College London, 86-96 Chenies Mews, London WC1E 6HX, UK
| | - K Aittomäki
- Laboratory of Genetics, Helsinki University Hospital, PO Box 720, FI-00029, Helsinki, Finland
| | - P Borry
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35 - Box 7001. B-3000, Leuven Belgium
| | - M C Cornel
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G de Wert
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, De Byeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - W Dondorp
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, Research Schools CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, De Byeplein 1, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - J Geraedts
- Department Genetics and Cell Biology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - L Gianaroli
- S.I.S.Me.R. Reproductive Medicine Unit, Via Mazzini 12, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | - K Ketterson
- Althea Science, Inc., 3 Regent St #301, Livingston, NJ 07039, USA
| | - I Liebaers
- Centre for Medical Genetics, UZ Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium
| | - K Lundin
- Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Blå Stråket 6, 413 45, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - H Mertes
- Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Belgium
| | - M Morris
- Synlab Genetics, chemin d'Entre-Bois 21, CH-1018, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - G Pennings
- Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Belgium
| | - K Sermon
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium
| | - C Spits
- Research Group Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium
| | - S Soini
- Helsinki Biobank, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 3, PO Box 400, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland
| | - A P A van Montfoort
- IVF laboratory, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - A Veiga
- Barcelona Stem Cell Bank, Centre of Regenerative Medicine in Barcelona, Hospital Duran i Reynals, Gran Via de l' Hospitalet 199, 08908, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
- Reproductive Medicine Service of Dexeus Woman Health, Gran Via Carles III, 71-75 - 08028 Barcelona, Spain
| | - J R Vermeesch
- Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, O&N I Herestraat 49 - Box 602, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - S Viville
- Institute of Parasitology and Pathology, University of Strasbourg, 3 rue Koberlé, 67000 Strasbourg, France
- Laboratory of Genetic Diagnostics, UF3472-Genetics of Infertility, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, 1 place de l'Hôpital, 67091 Strasbourg cedex, France
| | - M Macek
- Department of Biology and Medical Genetics, Charles University 2nd Faculty of Medicine and Motol University Hospital, V Úvalu 84, Prague CZ-15006, Czech Republic
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Voorwinden JS, Buitenhuis AH, Birnie E, Lucassen AM, Verkerk MA, van Langen IM, Plantinga M, Ranchor AV. Expanded carrier screening: what determines intended participation and can this be influenced by message framing and narrative information? Eur J Hum Genet 2017; 25:793-800. [PMID: 28594415 PMCID: PMC5520082 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2017.74] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2016] [Revised: 03/10/2017] [Accepted: 04/05/2017] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing enabled us to create a population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) test that simultaneously tests for 50 serious autosomal recessive diseases. Before offering this test universally, we wanted to know what factors are related to intended participation and how the general public can be informed about the test without being influenced in their intention to participate. We studied this by measuring to what extent 'message framing' and 'narrative information' can influence people's intended participation. Data were collected by means of an online survey of 504 potential users, and the factors examined were based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and on previous research on intended participation in preconception carrier screening. Message framing was manipulated by explaining the risk of couple carriership in different ways, while narrative information was provided to only half of the respondents. The factors most positively related to intended participation were perceiving benefits of the screening, having a positive attitude towards the screening, having no religion, having an actual child wish and experiencing the choice to participate as easy. Perceived benefits and a positive attitude were most influential factors by far. Message framing and narrative information had no significant effect on intended participation, reinforcing that message framing and narrative information can help to inform the general public about ECS without influencing their intended participation. Future research should study if the importance of perceived benefits and a positive attitude can be replicated when other factors are included and when actual participation is measured instead of intended participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan S Voorwinden
- Department of Health Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Anne H Buitenhuis
- Department of Health Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Erwin Birnie
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Anneke M Lucassen
- Department of Clinical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Marian A Verkerk
- Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Irene M van Langen
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Mirjam Plantinga
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Adelita V Ranchor
- Department of Health Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
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
|
17
|
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
|