Qualitative study of GPs' views and experiences of population-based preconception expanded carrier screening in the Netherlands: bioethical perspectives

Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: A Discourse Analysis of Dutch Webpages

Preconception expanded carrier screening (PECS) informs prospective parents about the risk of conceiving a child with a heritable genetic condition. PECS will also, for many, become an important screening test, and websites will likely play a vital role in providing information on this practice. The aim of this article is to examine rationalities in the information on PECS on Dutch websites. The method used is multimodal critical discourse analysis. This method allows an examination of norms and assumptions in the descriptions, as well as of the positions that are discursively made available. The data consist of publicly available material on websites from two genetics departments in the Netherlands. In the results, we present the three main discourses and subject positions that were identified: risk and the couple as possible mediators of severe conditions; the focus on scientific facts and rational conceivers; and severity of the conditions and the responsible couple. In this study, we highlight the importance of acknowledging the interrelation between epistemology and ethics in the discourse on PECS. Finally, it is claimed that the focus on scientific facts in information on PECS risks making existential and ethical dilemmas and choices invisible.

Exploring what is reasonable: uncovering moral reasoning of vascular surgeons in daily practice

BACKGROUND

Vascular surgery offers a range of treatments to relieve pain and ulcerations, and to prevent sudden death by rupture of blood vessels. The surgical procedures involve risk of injury and harm, which increases with age and frailty leading to complex decision-making processes that raise ethical questions. However, how vascular surgeons negotiate these questions is scarcely studied. The aim was therefore to explore vascular surgeons' moral reasoning of what ought to be done for the patient.

METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 vascular surgeons working at three Swedish university hospitals. Data were analysed according to systematic text condensation.

RESULTS

The surgeons' moral reasoning about what ought to be done comprised a quest to relieve suffering and avoid harm by exploring what is reasonable to do for the patient. Exploring reasonableness included to shift one´s perspective from the vessels to the whole person, to balance patient's conflicting needs and to place responsibility for right decision on one´s shoulders. The shift from blood vessels to the whole person implied gaining holistic knowledge in pondering of what is best, struggling with one´s authority for surgery through dialogue, and building relationship for mutual security. To balance patient's conflicting needs implied weighing the patient's independence and a sense of being whole against ease of suffering, respecting the patient's will against protecting life and well-being, and weighing longer life against protecting the present well-being. Finally, to place responsibility on one´s shoulders was conveyed as an urge to remind oneself of the risk of complications, withholding one's power of proficiency, and managing time during the illness course.

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes to uncovering how moral reasoning is embodied in the vascular surgeons' everyday clinical discourse as a tangible part of their patient care. The results underpin the significance of moral considerations in the assemblage of medical knowledge and technical skills to further understand vascular surgeons' clinical practice. The clinical application of these results is the need of forums with sufficient possibilities for articulating these important moral considerations in everyday care.

Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review

Carrier screening aims to identify couples at risk of conceiving children with a recessive condition. Until recently, carrier screening was primarily offered ancestry-based. Technological advances now facilitate expanded universal carrier screening (EUCS). This scoping review aimed to map EUCS's potential societal implications based on both theoretical studies and empirical evidence. To this aim, we performed a CoCites search to find relevant articles, including articles describing carrier screening for at-risk populations, based on five selected query articles. Forty articles were included. Three main potential societal implications were identified: (1) unwanted medicalization, (2) stigmatization and discrimination of carriers and people affected with the conditions screened and (3) challenges in achieving equitable access. Within these themes, potential positive implications are reduction of ethnic stigmatization in ancestry-based offers and increased equity. Potential negative implications are reinforcement of disability-based stigmatization, less possibility for developing expertise in healthcare and societal pressure to partake in screening. Empirical evidence on all these implications is however scarce. In conclusion, both positive and negative potential societal implications of implementing EUCS, primarily theoretical, were identified, even in at-risk groups where evidence is mostly lacking. Empirical research in EUCS pilots is needed to identify which societal implications are likely to occur and therefore should be overcome when implementing EUCS.

Outcomes of Importance to Patients in Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: A Qualitative Study to Inform a Core Outcome Set

There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes assessed across studies of reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Only a small number of studies have measured patient-reported outcomes or included patients in the selection of outcomes that are meaningful to them. This study was a cross-sectional, qualitative study of 15 patient participants conducted to inform a core outcome set. A core outcome set is an approach to facilitate standardisation in outcome reporting, allowing direct comparison of outcomes across studies to enhance understanding of impacts and potential harms. The aim of this study was to incorporate the patient perspective in the development of a core outcome set by eliciting a detailed understanding of outcomes of importance to patients. Data were collected via online, semi-structured interviews using a novel method informed by co-design and the nominal group technique. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Outcomes elicited from patient stakeholder interviews highlighted several under-explored areas for future research. This includes the role of grief and loss in increased risk couples, the role of empowerment in conceptualising the utility of RGCS, the impact of societal context and barriers that contribute to negative experiences, and the role of genetic counselling in ensuring that information needs are met and informed choice facilitated as RGCS becomes increasingly routine. Future research should focus on incorporating outcomes that accurately reflect patient needs and experience.