1
|
Salisbury A, Norris S, Pearce A, Howard K. Australian Preferences for Prenatal Screening: A Discrete Choice Experiment Comparing Metropolitan and Rural/Regional Areas. APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY 2025:10.1007/s40258-024-00938-5. [PMID: 39820883 DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00938-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/05/2024] [Indexed: 01/19/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Non-invasive prenatal testing has the potential to be a useful genetic screening tool in Australia. However, concerns have been raised about its cost, commercial provision, the psychological impacts of the screening process, and disparities in access experienced by rural and regional communities. AIMS The aims of this study are (1) to estimate Australian preferences for features of prenatal screening; (2) to explore potential variations in preferences between metropolitan and rural/regional communities; (3) to estimate the extent to which respondents are willing to trade-off between attributes, using willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to wait estimates. METHODS A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 12 choice tasks. The DCE recruited participants from metropolitan (n = 160) and rural/regional (n = 168) locations across Australia. Mixed logit and latent class analyses were conducted and WTP and willingness to wait were calculated. RESULTS Both metropolitan and rural/regional preferences were significantly impacted by the false-positive rate, false-negative rate, and cost. In addition, rural preferences were significantly impacted by the scope of the conditions covered, the inconclusive rate, and wait times. The number of screening tests and revealing the sex of the foetus were not significant within either group. Willingness to pay estimates ranged from AU$13 to avoid a test with a 1% increase in the false-positive rate to AU$323 to screen for a wide range of conditions. CONCLUSIONS This study highlights the importance of considering differing preferences between rural and metropolitan populations when delivering prenatal screening. Further, this study provides Australian-specific WTP estimates to be incorporated into economic evaluations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amber Salisbury
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
- The Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Sarah Norris
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Alison Pearce
- The Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Kirsten Howard
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chapman CR. Ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic risk prediction for multifactorial disease: a narrative review identifying concerns about interpretation and use of polygenic scores. J Community Genet 2023; 14:441-452. [PMID: 36529843 PMCID: PMC10576696 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-022-00625-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Advances in genomics have enabled the development of polygenic scores (PGS), sometimes called polygenic risk scores, in the context of multifactorial diseases and disorders such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and schizophrenia. PGS estimate an individual's genetic predisposition, as compared to other members of a population, for conditions which are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. There is significant interest in using genetic risk prediction afforded through PGS in public health, clinical care, and research settings, yet many acknowledge the need to thoughtfully consider and address ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). To contribute to this effort, this paper reports on a narrative review of the literature, with the aim of identifying and categorizing ELSI relating to genetic risk prediction in the context of multifactorial disease, which have been raised by scholars in the field. Ninety-two articles, spanning from 1977 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria for this study. Identified ELSI included potential benefits, challenges and risks that focused on concerns about interpretation and use, and ethical obligations to maximize benefits, minimize risks, promote justice, and support autonomy. This research will support geneticists, clinicians, genetic counselors, patients, patient advocates, and policymakers in recognizing and addressing ethical concerns associated with PGS; it will also guide future empirical and normative research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carolyn Riley Chapman
- Department of Population Health (Division of Medical Ethics), NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
- Center for Human Genetics and Genomics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, Science Building, 435 E. 30th St, 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Williams KB, Lasarev MR, Baker M, Seroogy CM. Cross-sectional survey on genetic testing utilization and perceptions in Wisconsin Amish and Mennonite communities. J Community Genet 2023; 14:41-49. [PMID: 36385695 PMCID: PMC9947211 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-022-00621-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 11/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Amish and Mennonite (Plain) communities have increased prevalence of many recessively inherited disorders due to founder variants that can be identified using next-generation sequencing (NGS). We assessed newborn screening (NBS) utilization, prior genetic testing, and perceptions of genetic testing among Wisconsin Plain communities to guide implementation and utilization of a population-specific NGS gene panel testing. A mailed paper survey (N = 959) of demographics, NBS utilization, prior genetic testing, and preferences for categorical genetic disorder and defined clinical context testing was developed. Overall response rate was 39% (N = 378; 183 Amish, 193 Mennonite; 2 not Amish/Mennonite). Mennonites were more likely to respond in favor of carrier screening for metabolic disorders and other surgical conditions and less likely to respond in favor of asymptomatic testing for neurologic disorders and lethal disorders compared to Amish. Reported utilization of NBS was positively associated with stated interest in genetic testing for an asymptomatic child. Reported prior genetic testing was positively associated with stated interest in carrier screening and negatively associated with testing a symptomatic child. Although Plain community members share many common outward characteristics, our survey responses suggest diversity in their views of genetic testing and support laboratory methods that can be flexible to varied needs of individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie B. Williams
- Center for Special Children, La Farge Medical Clinic - Vernon Memorial Healthcare, 206 North Mill Street, La Farge, WI 54639 USA ,Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA
| | - Michael R. Lasarev
- Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA
| | - Mei Baker
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA ,Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA ,Center for Human Genomics and Precision Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA
| | - Christine M. Seroogy
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tiller JM, Bakshi A, Brotchie AR, Green RC, Winship IM, Lacaze P. Public willingness to participate in population DNA screening in Australia. J Med Genet 2022:jmg-2022-108921. [DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2022-108921] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2022] [Accepted: 11/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
BackgroundPopulation-based DNA screening for medically actionable conditions has the potential to improve public health by enabling early detection, treatment and/or prevention; however, public attitudes and willingness to participate in DNA screening have not been well investigated.MethodsWe presented a scenario to members of the Australian public, randomly selected from the electoral roll via the Australian Survey of Societal Attitudes, describing an adult population DNA screening programme currently under development, to detect risk of medically actionable cancers and heart disease. We asked questions regarding willingness to participate and pay, preferred delivery methods and concerns.ResultsWe received 1060 completed questionnaires (response rate 23%, mean age 58 years). The vast majority (>92%) expressed willingness to undertake DNA screening. When asked about the optimal age of screening, most (56%) favoured early adulthood (aged 18–40 years) rather than at birth or childhood. Many respondents would prefer samples and data be kept for re-screening (36%) or research use (43%); some preferred samples to be destroyed (21%). Issues that decrease likelihood of participation included privacy (75%) and insurance (86%) implications.ConclusionOur study demonstrates public willingness to participate in population DNA screening in Australia, and identifies barriers to participation, to be addressed in the design of screening programmes. Results are informing the development of a pilot national DNA screening programme.
Collapse
|
5
|
Lencz T, Sabatello M, Docherty A, Peterson RE, Soda T, Austin J, Bierut L, Crepaz-Keay D, Curtis D, Degenhardt F, Huckins L, Lazaro-Munoz G, Mattheisen M, Meiser B, Peay H, Rietschel M, Walss-Bass C, Davis LK. Concerns about the use of polygenic embryo screening for psychiatric and cognitive traits. Lancet Psychiatry 2022; 9:838-844. [PMID: 35931093 PMCID: PMC9930635 DOI: 10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00157-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2022] [Revised: 04/01/2022] [Accepted: 04/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Private companies have begun offering services to allow parents undergoing in-vitro fertilisation to screen embryos for genetic risk of complex diseases, including psychiatric disorders. This procedure, called polygenic embryo screening, raises several difficult scientific and ethical issues, as discussed in this Personal View. Polygenic embryo screening depends on the statistical properties of polygenic risk scores, which are complex and not well studied in the context of this proposed clinical application. The clinical, social, and ethical implications of polygenic embryo screening have barely been discussed among relevant stakeholders. To our knowledge, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics is the first professional biomedical organisation to issue a statement regarding polygenic embryo screening. For the reasons discussed in this Personal View, the Society urges caution and calls for additional research and oversight on the use of polygenic embryo screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Todd Lencz
- Divison of Psychiatry Research, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Glen Oaks, NY, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Division of Research, The Zucker Hillside Hospital Division of Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, NY, USA; Institute for Behavioral Science, The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY, USA.
| | - Maya Sabatello
- Division of Ethics, Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Anna Docherty
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Roseann E Peterson
- Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Takahiro Soda
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Jehannine Austin
- Departments of Psychiatry and Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Laura Bierut
- Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA
| | | | - David Curtis
- UCL Genetics Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Franziska Degenhardt
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany
| | - Laura Huckins
- Departments of Psychiatry and Genetics and Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Manuel Mattheisen
- Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie Medical School, Halifax, NS, Canada
| | - Bettina Meiser
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia
| | - Holly Peay
- Genomics, Bioinformatics, and Translational Research Center, RTI International, Raleigh, NC, USA
| | - Marcella Rietschel
- Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Consuelo Walss-Bass
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Lea K Davis
- Vanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Shen EC, Srinivasan S, Passero LE, Allen CG, Dixon M, Foss K, Halliburton B, Milko LV, Smit AK, Carlson R, Roberts MC. Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review. Front Genet 2022; 13:865384. [PMID: 35860476 PMCID: PMC9289280 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.865384] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2022] [Accepted: 06/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Studies suggest that 1-3% of the general population in the United States unknowingly carry a genetic risk factor for a common hereditary disease. Population genetic screening is the process of offering otherwise healthy patients in the general population testing for genomic variants that predispose them to diseases that are clinically actionable, meaning that they can be prevented or mitigated if they are detected early. Population genetic screening may significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from these diseases by informing risk-specific prevention or treatment strategies and facilitating appropriate participation in early detection. To better understand current barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to the implementation of population genetic screening, we conducted a systematic review and searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles published from date of database inception to May 2020. We included articles that 1) detailed the perspectives of participants in population genetic screening programs and 2) described the barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to population genetic screening programs among patients, healthcare providers, and the public. We excluded articles that 1) focused on direct-to-consumer or risk-based genetic testing and 2) were published before January 2000. Thirty articles met these criteria. Barriers and facilitators to population genetic screening were organized by the Social Ecological Model and further categorized by themes. We found that research in population genetic screening has focused on stakeholder attitudes with all included studies designed to elucidate individuals' perceptions. Additionally, inadequate knowledge and perceived limited clinical utility presented a barrier for healthcare provider uptake. There were very few studies that conducted long-term follow-up and evaluation of population genetic screening. Our findings suggest that these and other factors, such as prescreen counseling and education, may play a role in the adoption and implementation of population genetic screening. Future studies to investigate macro-level determinants, strategies to increase provider buy-in and knowledge, delivery models for prescreen counseling, and long-term outcomes of population genetic screening are needed for the effective design and implementation of such programs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020198198.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily C Shen
- College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.,UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Swetha Srinivasan
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Lauren E Passero
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Caitlin G Allen
- Department of Public Health Science, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States
| | - Madison Dixon
- Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Science, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | - Kimberly Foss
- Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Brianna Halliburton
- College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Laura V Milko
- Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Rebecca Carlson
- Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| | - Megan C Roberts
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|