Chromosomal microarray analysis for looked after children: a double-edged sword?

Can Genomics Remove Uncertainty from Adoption? Social Workers' and Medical Advisors' Accounts of Genetic Testing

Genetic testing is controversial in adoption with professionals taking different positions on whether children should be protected from genetic information or whether it can be used to assist adoption. In this article, we argue that advances in 'genome-wide' testing add further complications to these debates. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) and microarray-based technologies can offer high-quality molecular diagnoses for a variety of conditions, they also increase the burden of interpretation. For these reasons, adoption professionals will need to understand the relevance and complexity of biomedical information. Our study explores the accounts of social workers' and medical advisors' knowledge and reasoning about genetic testing in adoption. Twenty participants, including social workers, managers, medical advisors and paediatricians, were recruited from adoption services in England and Wales. A key finding revealed that medical professionals reported increasing pressure to test children prior to adoption, whilst social workers justified testing on the basis that it reduced uncertainty and therefore assisted adoption. Professionals' accounts of genetic testing suggest that social workers may not be aware of the potential indeterminacy of microarray and NGS technologies. This has important implications for adoption because increases in genomic uncertainty can stigmatise children and disadvantage their prospects for adoption.

Professionals' accounts of genetic testing in adoption: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To explore social workers' and medical advisors' accounts of genetic testing in adoption.

METHODS

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to gather in-depth accounts of retrospective cases. Data were analysed thematically to identify professionals' knowledge and expectations.

RESULTS

Twenty professionals working in adoption services (including 8 medical advisors and 12 social workers) participated in this study. Social workers adopted an essentialist (single-gene) model to discuss genetic testing in relation to past cases. They assumed that testing was a generic procedure for detecting the presence or absence of a specific aetiology, the results of which were believed to be definitive and mutually exclusive. By contrast, medical advisors were circumspect and agnostic about the meaning of results, especially in relation to chromosomal microarray testing. Whereas social workers believed that genetic testing provided clarity in assessment and therefore assisted adoption, medical advisors emphasised the uncertainties of testing and the possibility that prospective adopters might be misled. Medical advisors also reported inappropriate requests to test children where there was a family history of a genetic condition, or to confirm or exclude a diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in children presenting with non-specific dysmorphic features.

CONCLUSION

Recent advances in genetic technologies are changing the ways in which professionals understand and tolerate uncertainty in adoption. Social workers and medical advisors have different understandings and expectations about the clinical utility of genetic testing. These findings have implications for social work training about genetic testing and enabling effective communication between professional groups.

The genetic assessment of looked after children: common reasons for referral and recent advances

Looked after children are recognised as generally having greater health needs than their peers. There are numerous potential causes, environmental and genetic, and the aetiology is often multifactorial. Assessments, especially clinical genetic ones, may be limited if the information available is incomplete or not shared. There have been some exciting recent advances in diagnostic genetic testing and more are on the horizon. However, we are currently only able to make a genetic diagnosis in less than half of patients, even when both parents are available for comparative testing. There may, therefore, remain an inevitable degree of residual uncertainty about the genetic contribution to a particular child's problems. There are increasing societal pressures for genetic information to be made available to individuals in general. However, there are significant considerations in carrier/predictive testing in children and we would maintain that looked after children should not be treated differently to other children in this regard, unless there is a compelling 'best interest' justification for so doing. Diagnostic criteria exist for fetal alcohol syndrome and other embryopathies and should be applied. Such should be considered as diagnoses of exclusion, so a child should not be prematurely labelled with these conditions, without fully assessing for the contribution of other factors, genetic or otherwise.