Factors influencing whether or not couples seek genetic counselling: an explorative study in a paediatric surgical unit

What Predicts the Use of Genetic Counseling Services After the Birth of a Child with Down Syndrome?

In the state of Victoria, Australia, a government funded genetic counseling service exists to meet the needs of families. An audit showed that many families do not use this service after the birth of a child with a genetic problem. To investigate this we surveyed families of children born with Down syndrome over 2 years in Victoria. Questionnaires were completed by 74 mothers, of whom only 18 had received genetic counseling between the birth and the time of the study (mean 3.5 years). Of those not receiving genetic counseling, 71% said they were not offered or had not heard of it. Mothers who had genetic counseling were younger than those who had not, and were more likely to have attended University. Those who had genetic counseling indicated less "satisfaction with care at the diagnosis" and were more likely to perceive their child as "unwell at birth" than those who were aware of genetic counseling but did not have it. Of those who did not have genetic counseling, over half were unclear about what it is, although 74% agreed with the statement "genetic counseling is most useful when planning to have another child." Of those who had heard of genetic counseling, 73% said they were not sure how it could help. Many families with children with Down syndrome are not aware of the existence or functions of genetic counseling. With greater awareness, some may still choose not to have genetic counseling, but others enunciated needs that could be met by this service if it were offered to them.

Genetic counseling for familial conditions during pregnancy: an analysis of patient characteristics

Reproductive genetic counseling for a familial genetic risk factor preferably takes place before conception. However, of the women with a family history of genetic conditions who attend our department of clinical genetics, about 10-20% attend for the first time during a pregnancy. The current study aims to explore patient-related factors that may affect this late timing of reproductive genetic counseling. Consecutive pregnant (n = 100) and non-pregnant (n = 84) women visiting the department of clinical genetics for a genetic risk factor which was not age related completed a questionnaire immediately prior to the consultation. The questionnaire asked for (a) background characteristics, i.e. socio-demographic, obstetric, and disease characteristics (b) cognitive factors, i.e. initiative of referral, knowledge of the risk factor involved, risk perception, worry, child wish, attitudes toward abortion, and preferred participation in decision making, and (c) reasons for the timing of the consultation and for seeking genetic counseling. Pregnant women appeared to be higher educated, considered their children more often as healthy and were less often affected themselves, as compared to non-pregnant women. They also estimated their chance of having an affected child as lower, and they worried less. Furthermore, the initiative for referral was taken less often by the pregnant woman herself and more often by a medical worker. There were no major differences between the two study groups in knowledge, perceived severity of the risk factor, child wish, attitudes toward abortion, desired participation in decision making, and reasons to seek genetic counseling. Women indicated no specific reasons for their timing of referral for reproductive genetic counseling, e.g. during vs before pregnancy. Our data suggest that this timing of referral is not influenced predominantly by the women's level of knowledge. Rather, women's estimation of genetic risks and their degree of worry, which may be in accordance with the actual risk figures, seem to play a role in seeking genetic counseling. Although further studies are required, a more active role of health care providers seems warranted if we want to prevent genetic counseling for familial genetic conditions during pregnancy as much as possible.

Patient follow-up is a major problem at genetics clinics

Children with genetic diseases must be followed for long periods of time to seek new findings. Other patients require further check-ups and studies to be diagnosed. Some patients never return for medical care after the first consultation, which may have serious consequences. We reviewed 400 medical charts of patients with genetic disease to analyze overall attendance to the genetics clinic, investigate some of the causes of failure to seek medical advice, and determine the differences between those first seen as outpatients or as inpatients. The mean follow-up period was 8.3 months (range 0-79), and the average number of visits was 2.8 (range 1-16). Forty eight percent of the cases first seen as inpatients were evaluated only once and 14% twice; while 22 and 21% of the 300 cases first seen as outpatients attended once and twice, respectively (P = 0.0). Appointment keeping was apparently not affected by the presence or absence of diagnosis. Overall, 97 patients were discharged, 7 died, 55 continued on follow-up, 62 attended other hospital services-but not genetics-and 179 were completely lost to follow-up. Diagnosed patients were counseled more frequently than undiagnosed patients (62 vs. 5%); and 71% of the diagnosed patients first seen as outpatients but only 36% of undiagnosed cases first seen as inpatients were counseled, differences between these two groups were significant (P = 0.005). We conclude that keeping the patient with genetic disease on follow-up is a difficult task. New educational strategies must be planned to improve this worrisome situation.

Utilization of genetic counseling by parents of a child or fetus with congenital malformation in North-East Italy

Congenital malformations (CM) affect 2-3% of all births, the cause of which, when known, is genetic in 80-90% of cases. A genetic consultation (GC) is indicated for the parents of a child affected by a CM. This study analyzes the parental utilization of genetic counseling (GCU) and its possible influencing factors after termination of pregnancy (TOP) because of fetal anomalies or after the birth of a child affected by a major malformation. The study concerns cases in North-East Italy where there is a CM registry and a center-satellite system for genetic counseling. The results of this analysis are also compared to other similar studies, which address the same topic. Between 1981 and 2000, 1,235 out of 14,888 GC were performed because of the presence of a CM in a child/fetus. In the same period, 4,933 births and 1,112 TOPs were registered. The overall GCU was 19%, with significant differences according to malformative phenotype, severity of the malformative condition, type of birth, and viability. Genetic counseling was performed significantly sooner following TOP than after the birth of a malformed child. GCU showed an unequal distribution according to the parents' place of residence, suggesting that easy and equal access to the genetic service was probably not well provided for. Our results suggest that genetic services should be integrated with related services, and that the public and physicians need a greater awareness of these services.

Referral for genetic counselling during pregnancy: limited alertness and awareness about genetic risk factors among GPs

BACKGROUND

In many countries, GPs play a key role in the referral to other medical specialists. Referral for reproductive genetic counselling during a pregnancy of women with a genetic risk factor already present before pregnancy has many disadvantages. Nevertheless, some 10-20% of the counsellees who attend a Department of Clinical Genetics for the first time are pregnant.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore the role of the GP in referring women for genetic counselling during, instead of before a pregnancy.

METHOD

The GPs of 100 pregnant women who received genetic counselling were invited to participate in the study and asked to complete a questionnaire. The topics were: initiation and discussion of aspects of referral to the Department of Clinical Genetics; reasons for the referral during, instead of before a pregnancy; knowledge of genetic counselling; attitudes towards genetic counselling before a pregnancy; and attitudes towards abortion.

RESULTS

To our surprise, 29% of the GPs indicated that they had not been involved in the referral to the Department of Clinical Genetics at all. Furthermore, the referral was initiated by the patient herself in most cases (40%) and by the GPs in 31% of the cases. Of the GPs who were involved in the referral, most of them (79%) talked to their patients to different extents about what to expect from their visit to the Department of Clinical Genetics; however, potential choices after an adverse outcome at prenatal diagnosis were discussed less often (60%). The main reason for referring the patient during, instead of before her pregnancy was because the GP was unaware of a potential risk factor before pregnancy (71%) and, consequently, never had a chance to talk about a referral before (71%). Other reasons for referral during pregnancy mentioned by the GPs were reassuring the patient about the health of her unborn child (32%) and the wish of the patient to be referred during pregnancy (31%). GPs considered their knowledge of clinical genetics to be limited (mean score 5, on a scale from 0 to 10). The majority of the GPs were in favour of genetic counselling taking place before, instead of during pregnancy, and they had no great objections to abortion.

CONCLUSIONS

During pregnancy, the gatekeeper function of the GP in the referral for genetic counselling is undermined. Limited alertness and awareness among GPs about genetic risk factors in their patients played a major role in this undermined function and in the less appropriate timing of referral. Neither insufficient knowledge nor barriers to acceptance explained this lack of alertness and awareness. We advocate the implementation of routine family history taking in general practice.