Literature DB >> 12833400

Population screening for cystic fibrosis: knowledge and emotional consequences 18 months later.

Claire Gordon1, Ian Walpole, Stephen R Zubrick, Carol Bower.   

Abstract

We assessed cystic fibrosis (CF) knowledge and emotional consequences of CF population testing 18 months after screening was offered. Questionnaires were sent to 593 individuals and 353 responded (59.5%). All respondents had sound knowledge of CF disease, although carriers were more likely to correctly state the pattern of CF inheritance and CF carrier rate in Australia. Eleven of 47 carriers falsely believed they were only very likely to be carriers, while nearly a third of test-negative individuals falsely believed they were definitely not carriers. Imprecise recall of the meaning of results may be due to memory loss over time, simplification of result meaning and minimization of risk. The Health Orientation Scale (HOS) was used to assess emotional consequences of CF carrier testing 18 months after testing. Both carriers and test-negative individuals thought most carriers would experience more negative feelings than most non-carriers. Carriers experienced less positive feelings about their test result compared to non-carriers. Interestingly, the carriers' own feelings about their result were more positive compared to how they thought most carriers would feel. These results suggest that carriers experience minimal adverse psychological effects, although a negative social stigma may be attached to carrying the CF gene mutation. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12833400     DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med Genet A        ISSN: 1552-4825            Impact factor:   2.802


  8 in total

1.  Carrier screening in preconception consultation in primary care.

Authors:  Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-12-20

Review 2.  Can we make assumptions about the psychosocial impact of living as a carrier, based on studies assessing the effects of carrier testing?

Authors:  Celine Lewis; Heather Skirton; Ray Jones
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Assessment of psychosocial outcomes in genetic counseling research: an overview of available measurement scales.

Authors:  Nadine A Kasparian; Claire E Wakefield; Bettina Meiser
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-08-13       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Advantages of expanded universal carrier screening: what is at stake?

Authors:  Sanne van der Hout; Kim Ca Holtkamp; Lidewij Henneman; Guido de Wert; Wybo J Dondorp
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Preconception carrier screening for multiple disorders: evaluation of a screening offer in a Dutch founder population.

Authors:  Inge B Mathijssen; Kim C A Holtkamp; Cecile P E Ottenheim; Janneke M C van Eeten-Nijman; Phillis Lakeman; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Merel C van Maarle; Lidewij Henneman
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 4.246

6.  What is in a cause? Exploring the relationship between genetic cause and felt stigma.

Authors:  Pamela Sankar; Mildred K Cho; Paul Root Wolpe; Cynthia Schairer
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Patterns and Predictors of Language and Literacy Abilities 4-10 Years in the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children.

Authors:  Stephen R Zubrick; Catherine L Taylor; Daniel Christensen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening.

Authors:  Lidewij Henneman; Pascal Borry; Davit Chokoshvili; Martina C Cornel; Carla G van El; Francesca Forzano; Alison Hall; Heidi C Howard; Sandra Janssens; Hülya Kayserili; Phillis Lakeman; Anneke Lucassen; Sylvia A Metcalfe; Lovro Vidmar; Guido de Wert; Wybo J Dondorp; Borut Peterlin
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 4.246

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.