1
|
Pasquier L, Reyneke M, Beeckman L, Siermann M, Van Steijvoort E, Borry P. Attitudes of professional stakeholders towards implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 2023; 31:395-408. [PMID: 36631542 PMCID: PMC10133284 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-022-01274-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2022] [Revised: 11/27/2022] [Accepted: 12/15/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) for hundreds of different genetic conditions is technically available for prospective parents, but these tests have not been integrated in a public health policy except for specific sub-groups. We aimed to provide an overview of the perspectives of multiple professional stakeholder groups in order to enhance a responsible implementation of population-based reproductive genetic carrier screening. We conducted a systematic literature search using eight online databases focussing on studies that were published from January 2009 to January 2021. We selected articles dealing with attitudes and opinions from different professional stakeholders, in particular healthcare professionals and policymakers, on how to implement a policy about carrier screening for a reproductive purpose. We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Based on our inductive analysis, we identified ten themes categorized in both clinical and program management challenges: ensuring availability of RGCS to all couples who request the test, embedding RGCS as a test offer before pregnancy, providing clear and reliable information, ensuring voluntary participation, developing genetic counselling pre- and post-testing (after positive or negative result), avoiding psychological harm, ensuring equal access, avoiding social pressure, educating and involving a broad spectrum of non-genetic health care professionals, and promoting an independent non-commercial organisational structure. We highlight one major stumbling block on how to responsibly inform couples about hundreds different genetic conditions within constraints regarding time and ability of non-genetic professionals. We promote further research to tackle the issues brought up by this systematic review through pilot studies. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2021 # CRD42021233762; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=233762 .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laurent Pasquier
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
- Clinical genetics, Reference Center for Rares Diseases "Intellectual Disabilities", Rennes University Hospital, 35203, Rennes, France.
| | - Maryn Reyneke
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
- Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health, Ethics and Society GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Lauranne Beeckman
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Maria Siermann
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Eva Van Steijvoort
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Pascal Borry
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
What is a 'serious' genetic condition? The perceptions of people living with genetic conditions. Eur J Hum Genet 2021; 30:160-169. [PMID: 34565797 PMCID: PMC8821585 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-00962-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2021] [Revised: 08/16/2021] [Accepted: 09/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite no consensus on the definition of ‘seriousness’, the concept is regularly used in policy and practice contexts to categorise conditions, determine access to genetic technologies and uses of selective pregnancy termination. Whilst attempts have been made to create taxonomies of genetic condition seriousness to inform clinical and policy decision-making, these have often relied on condition appraisals made by health and genetics professionals. The views of people with genetic conditions have been largely under-represented. This study explores the concept of seriousness through the perspectives of people with a range of ‘clinically serious’ conditions (fragile X conditions, spinal muscular atrophy, cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, thalassaemia). Attitudes towards suffering, quality of life (QoL) and selective pregnancy termination were elucidated from 45 in-depth qualitative interviews and 469 postal/online surveys. The majority of participants reported good health/wellbeing, and the capacity for good QoL, despite experiencing suffering with their condition. Notably, participants with later-onset conditions held more negative views of their health and QoL, and were more likely to view their condition as an illness, than those with early-onset conditions. These participants were more likely to see their condition as part of their identity. Whilst most participants supported prenatal screening, there was little support for selective termination. Moreover, social environment emerged as a critical mediator of the experience of the condition. The complex and rich insights of people living with genetic conditions might usefully be incorporated into future genetic taxonomies of ‘seriousness’ to ensure they more accurately reflect the lived reality of those with genetic conditions.
Collapse
|
3
|
Preconception expanded carrier screening: a focus group study with relatives of mucopolysaccharidosis type III patients and the general population. J Community Genet 2021; 12:311-323. [PMID: 33754291 PMCID: PMC8241963 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00519-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2020] [Accepted: 03/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS) enables prospective parents to assess their risk of having a child with an autosomal recessive disorder. Knowledge on motivations, feelings, and considerations people have towards the offer and use of ECS is limited. To enrich the public and professional discussion on ECS implementation, this study explored the perspectives towards various aspects of ECS in seven focus groups compromising first- and second-degree relatives of MPS III patients (N=9, N=4, N=5, N=5) and members of the general Dutch population (N=6, N=7, N=5). The focus groups were audio recorded and the transcripts were qualitatively analyzed to identify themes. Both relatives of MPS III patients and participants from the general population supported offering ECS, in particular for severe, childhood-onset disorders. Important barriers identified for ECS were a lack of genetic knowledge and a perceived lack of personal relevance and awareness, as well as out-of-pocket costs of testing. The majority of participants would prefer full disclosure of individual test results instead of couple-based test results. Moreover, offering people a choice for the way of reporting was proposed. All participants agreed that more efforts, for example by governmental campaigns, should be made to increase awareness on the availability, potentials, and limitations of ECS. Educating prospective parents about ECS is essential for increasing awareness and informed decision making. This study provides valuable insights that can be used by governments and public health authorities when considering implementation of preconception ECS.
Collapse
|
4
|
Thomas LA, Lewis S, Massie J, Kirk EP, Archibald AD, Barlow-Stewart K, Boardman FK, Halliday J, McClaren B, Delatycki MB. Which types of conditions should be included in reproductive genetic carrier screening? Views of parents of children with a genetic condition. Eur J Med Genet 2020; 63:104075. [PMID: 33007447 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2020.104075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/18/2020] [Revised: 08/21/2020] [Accepted: 09/20/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Reproductive genetic carrier screening identifies couples with an increased chance of having children with autosomal and X-linked recessive conditions. Initially only offered for single conditions to people with a high priori risk, carrier screening is becoming increasingly offered to individuals/couples in the general population for a wider range of genetic conditions. Despite advances in genomic testing technology and greater availability of carrier screening panels, there is no consensus around which types of conditions to include in carrier screening panels. This study sought to identify which types of conditions parents of children with a genetic condition believe should be included in carrier screening. Participants (n = 150) were recruited through Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) Melbourne outpatient clinics, the Genetic Support Network of Victoria (GSNV) and a databank of children with hearing loss (VicCHILD). This study found that the majority of participants support offering carrier screening for: neuromuscular conditions (n = 128/134, 95.5%), early fatal neurodegenerative conditions (n = 130/141, 92.2%), chronic multi-system disorders (n = 124/135, 91.9%), conditions which cause intellectual disability (n = 128/139, 92.1%) and treatable metabolic conditions (n = 120/138, 87.0%). Views towards the inclusion of non-syndromic hearing loss (n = 88/135, 65.2%) and preventable adult-onset conditions (n = 75/135, 55.6%) were more mixed. Most participants indicated that they would use reproductive options to avoid having a child with the more clinically severe conditions, but most would not do so for clinically milder conditions. A recurring association was observed between participants' views towards carrier screening and their lived experience of having a child with a genetic condition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren A Thomas
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Australia
| | - Sharon Lewis
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia
| | - John Massie
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia; Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Australia
| | - Edwin P Kirk
- Centre for Clinical Genetics, Sydney Children's Hospital, Australia; Randwick Genomics Laboratory, New South Wales Health Pathology, Australia; School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Australia
| | - Alison D Archibald
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia
| | - Kristine Barlow-Stewart
- School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Australia; Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Jane Halliday
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia
| | - Belinda McClaren
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia
| | - Martin B Delatycki
- Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Australia; Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Boardman FK, Clark C, Jungkurth E, Young PJ. Social and cultural influences on genetic screening programme acceptability: A mixed-methods study of the views of adults, carriers, and family members living with thalassemia in the UK. J Genet Couns 2020; 29:1026-1040. [PMID: 32114710 PMCID: PMC7754126 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2019] [Revised: 02/01/2020] [Accepted: 02/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
As population‐level carrier screening panels for reprogenetic information emerge globally, conditions to be included, and the timing of implementation is widely debated. Thalassemia is the only condition for which population‐based prenatal carrier screening is offered in the UK. However, little is known about the views and experiences of the UK thalassemia‐affected community toward this screening or other forms of genetic screening for thalassemia (newborn, preconception), despite the range of direct consequences of screening programmes for this group. Using a mixed‐methods integrative analysis (qualitative interviews n = 20 and quantitative survey n = 80), this study outlines the experiences and attitudes of adults with thalassemia, their family members, and screen‐identified thalassemia carriers toward preconception, prenatal, and newborn screening for thalassemia. The majority of participants described thalassemia as a burdensome condition with a range of negative impacts, which contributed to their strong support for screening in all its potential formats. However, the data also highlight the challenges of each screening mode for this group, reflected in the high level of value conflict in participants' accounts and decisions. Cultural, social, and (to a lesser extent) religious factors were found to mitigate against the advantages of early screens, particularly within faith communities. Social stigma emerged as key to this process, informing the way that thalassemia severity was not only perceived, but also experienced by affected adults, which ultimately influenced screening uptake and outcomes. These findings suggest that cultural and social sensitivity is as important as the mode of screening delivery itself, if the iatrogenic and unintended harms of screening—particularly the social/psychological burden of value conflict—are to be adequately addressed and minimized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felicity K Boardman
- Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Corinna Clark
- Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | | | - Philip J Young
- School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Matar A, Hansson MG, Höglund AT. Values and value conflicts in implementation and use of preconception expanded carrier screening - an expert interview study. BMC Med Ethics 2019; 20:25. [PMID: 31014326 PMCID: PMC6480611 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-019-0362-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2018] [Accepted: 04/03/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Endeavors have been made to found and incorporate ethical values in most aspects of healthcare, including health technology assessment. Health technologies and their assessment are value-laden and could trigger problems with dissemination if they contradict societal norms. Per WHO definition, preconception expanded carrier screening is a new health technology that warrants assessment. It is a genetic test offered to couples who have no known risk of recessive genetic diseases and are interested pregnancy. A test may screen for carrier status of several autosomal recessive diseases and X-linked at one go. The technique has been piloted in the Netherlands and is discussed in other countries. The aim of the study was to examine values and value conflicts that healthcare experts recounted in relation to the discussion of implementation and use of preconception ECS in Sweden. Methods We interviewed ten experts, who were associated with influencing health policymaking in Sweden. We employed systematizing expert interviews, which endeavor to access experts’ specialist knowledge. There were four female and six male informants, of which four were physicians, three bioethicists, one a legal expert, one a theologian and one a political party representative in the parliament. The participants functioned as members of two non-governmental bodies and three governmental organizations. We employed thematic analysis to identify themes, categories and subcategories. Results Two main themes surfaced: values and value conflicts. The main categories of Respect for persons, Solidarity, Human dignity, Do no harm, Health and Love formed the first theme, while values conflicting with autonomy and integrity respectively, constituted the second theme. Concepts relating to respect for persons were the most commonly mentioned among the participants, followed by notions alluding to solidarity. Furthermore, respondents discussed values conflicting with Swedish healthcare ones such as equality and solidarity. Conclusions The experts highlighted values and concepts that are distinctive of welfare states such as Sweden and delineated how preconception ECS could challenge such values. Moreover, the analysis revealed that certain values were deemed more substantive than others, judging by the extent and detail of inference; for example, respect for persons and solidarity were on top of the list.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amal Matar
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, SE-751 22, Uppsala, Sweden.
| | - Mats G Hansson
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, SE-751 22, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anna T Höglund
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Box 564, SE-751 22, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Janssens S, Chokoshvili D, Vears DF, De Paepe A, Borry P. Pre- and post-testing counseling considerations for the provision of expanded carrier screening: exploration of European geneticists' views. BMC Med Ethics 2017; 18:46. [PMID: 28764782 PMCID: PMC5539885 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-017-0206-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2016] [Accepted: 07/24/2017] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Carrier screening is generally performed with the aim of identifying healthy couples at risk of having a child affected with a monogenic disorder to provide them with reproductive options. Expanded carrier screening (ECS), which provides the opportunity for multiple conditions to be screened in one test, offers a more cost-effective and comprehensive option than screening for single disorders. However, implementation of ECS at a population level would have implications for genetic counseling practice. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with sixteen European clinical and molecular geneticists with expertise in carrier screening to explore their views on the implementation of ECS in the clinical setting. Results Using inductive content analysis, we identified content categories relevant to the pre- and post-test settings. Participants believed ECS would ideally be targeted at couples before pregnancy. There was some disagreement regarding the acceptability of performing ECS in individuals, with several participants actively opposing individual-based screening. In addition, participants discussed the importance of ensuring informed and voluntary participation in ECS, recommending measures to minimize external pressure on prospective parents to undergo testing. A need for adequate counseling to foster informed, autonomous reproductive decision-making and provide support for couples found to be at risk was emphasized. Conclusions Practical challenges in optimizing pre-test education and post-test counseling should not be underestimated and they should be carefully addressed before implementing ECS in the clinical setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra Janssens
- Centre for Medical Genetics Ghent, University Hospital Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
| | - Davit Chokoshvili
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Leuven Institute for Human Genomics and Society, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Danya F Vears
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Leuven Institute for Human Genomics and Society, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Anne De Paepe
- Centre for Medical Genetics Ghent, University Hospital Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Pascal Borry
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Leuven Institute for Human Genomics and Society, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Chokoshvili D, Vears D, Borry P. Expanded carrier screening for monogenic disorders: where are we now? Prenat Diagn 2017; 38:59-66. [DOI: 10.1002/pd.5109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2017] [Revised: 07/03/2017] [Accepted: 07/03/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Davit Chokoshvili
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care; University of Leuven; Leuven Belgium
| | - Danya Vears
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care; University of Leuven; Leuven Belgium
| | - Pascal Borry
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care; University of Leuven; Leuven Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Growing complexity of (expanded) carrier screening: Direct-to-consumer, physician-mediated, and clinic-based offers. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 44:57-67. [PMID: 28302443 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2017.02.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2017] [Revised: 02/09/2017] [Accepted: 02/09/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Since the introduction of out-of-hospital health-related genetic tests more than a decade ago, the landscape of genetic testing services has grown in complexity. Although initially most genetic tests for health purposes were offered as direct-to-consumer services, that is, without the mediation of a medical professional, currently many commercial providers require that their tests be ordered by a licensed physician. At the same time, some commercially developed health-related genetic tests are gaining support from the professional medical community and are finding their way into clinical practice. Therefore, we differentiated between three types of genetic testing offers: direct-to-consumer, physician-mediated, and clinic-based genetic testing. Expanded carrier screening tests for recessive disorders are currently available through all the three models of genetic testing. Herein, we review the present landscape of expanded carrier screening offers by highlighting the distinct issues associated with each of the three types of genetic testing.
Collapse
|