Literature DB >> 19223934

Preconceptional ancestry-based carrier couple screening for cystic fibrosis and haemoglobinopathies: what determines the intention to participate or not and actual participation?

Phillis Lakeman1, Anne Marie Catharina Plass, Lidewij Henneman, Pieter Dirk Bezemer, Martina Cornelia Cornel, Leo Pieter ten Kate.   

Abstract

This paper explores determinants of the intention to participate or not and of actual participation in preconceptional ancestry-based carrier couple screening for cystic fibrosis (CF) and haemoglobinopathies (HbPs). In total, 9453 individuals from a multi-ethnic population were invited. Invitees who had a partner and who were planning a pregnancy were the target population (33-36%). Test participation was conditional on survey participation. Those who refrained from test participation were asked to participate in the survey only. The questionnaire was based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which explains behaviour through intention. It was completed by 418 survey participants: 171 who intended to participate in the testing, and 247 who refrained from test participation. Both test intenders and offer decliners generally had a positive attitude towards test participation, and perceived high behavioural control. This applied to Western and non-Western survey participants equally. Offer decliners, however, perceived less control in terms of the time and effort needed for participation. Still, 68% of them intended to participate in the future if the screening would be offered routinely. Test intenders more often would draw reproductive consequences from test results, perceived a higher risk of being a carrier, more benefits and less adverse psychological outcomes. Feelings of stigmatisation were not an important issue, but 14% thought that there would be discrimination against carriers: among them more were non-Western survey participants. Preconceptional ancestry-based CF and HbPs carrier screening was evaluated as positive and desirable among Western and non-Western survey participants. The effort and time needed for participation were important reasons for declining participation, which might be overcome by improving access to the screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19223934      PMCID: PMC2986548          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet        ISSN: 1018-4813            Impact factor:   4.246


  37 in total

1.  Population genetic screening programmes: technical, social and ethical issues.

Authors: 
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Cystic fibrosis carrier population screening in the primary care setting.

Authors:  S Loader; P Caldwell; A Kozyra; J C Levenkron; C D Boehm; H H Kazazian; P T Rowley
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Gender differences in psychosocial reactions to cystic fibrosis carrier testing.

Authors:  Jamie E Newman; James R Sorenson; Brenda M DeVellis; Brian Cheuvront
Journal:  Am J Med Genet       Date:  2002-11-22

Review 4.  Some ethical and design challenges of screening programs and screening tests.

Authors:  Matthew J McQueen
Journal:  Clin Chim Acta       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.786

5.  Inherited haemoglobin disorders: an increasing global health problem.

Authors:  D J Weatherall; J B Clegg
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2001-10-24       Impact factor: 9.408

6.  Estimating the attitude of immigrants toward primary prevention of the hemoglobinopathies.

Authors:  Piero C Giordano; Ashwin A Dihal; Cornelis L Harteveld
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.050

7.  Twenty-year outcome analysis of genetic screening programs for Tay-Sachs and beta-thalassemia disease carriers in high schools.

Authors:  J J Mitchell; A Capua; C Clow; C R Scriver
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  Offering cystic fibrosis carrier screening to an HMO population: factors associated with utilization.

Authors:  E S Tambor; B A Bernhardt; G A Chase; R R Faden; G Geller; K J Hofman; N A Holtzman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 9.  Psychosocial aspects of genetic screening of pregnant women and newborns: a systematic review.

Authors:  J M Green; J Hewison; H L Bekker; L D Bryant; H S Cuckle
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.014

10.  Tay Sachs disease carrier screening in schools: educational alternatives and cheekbrush sampling.

Authors:  Alexandra A Gason; Sylvia A Metcalfe; Martin B Delatycki; Vicki Petrou; Edith Sheffield; Agnes Bankier; Maryanne Aitken
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  22 in total

1.  Carrier screening in preconception consultation in primary care.

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

2.  Commentary: a sociologist's view on community genetics.

Authors:  Aviad E Raz
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2010-02-25

3.  Attitudes of health care professionals toward carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. A review of the literature.

Authors:  S Janssens; A De Paepe; P Borry
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2012-12-29

4.  Determinants of the intention of preconception care use: lessons from a multi-ethnic urban population in the Netherlands.

Authors:  S Temel; E Birnie; H M Sonneveld; A J J Voorham; G J Bonsel; E A P Steegers; S Denktaş
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 3.380

Review 5.  The measurement of patient attitudes regarding prenatal and preconception genetic carrier screening and translational behavioral medicine: an integrative review.

Authors:  Jennifer J Shiroff; Mathew J Gregoski
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  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

7.  Modelling decisions to undergo genetic testing for susceptibility to common health conditions: an ancillary study of the Multiplex Initiative.

Authors:  Christopher H Wade; Shoshana Shiloh; Samuel W Woolford; J Scott Roberts; Sharon Hensley Alford; Theresa M Marteau; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2011-06-09

8.  Expanded carrier screening: what determines intended participation and can this be influenced by message framing and narrative information?

Authors:  Jan S Voorwinden; Anne H Buitenhuis; Erwin Birnie; Anneke M Lucassen; Marian A Verkerk; Irene M van Langen; Mirjam Plantinga; Adelita V Ranchor
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Disclosure of genetic research results to members of a founder population.

Authors:  Rebecca L Anderson; Kathleen Murray; Jessica X Chong; Rebecca Ouwenga; Marina Antillon; Peixian Chen; Lorena Diaz de Leon; Kathryn J Swoboda; Lucille A Lester; Soma Das; Carole Ober; Darrel J Waggoner
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Regional differences in awareness and attitudes regarding genetic testing for disease risk and ancestry.

Authors:  Charles R Jonassaint; Eunice R Santos; Crystal M Glover; Perry W Payne; Grace-Ann Fasaye; Nefertiti Oji-Njideka; Stanley Hooker; Wenndy Hernandez; Morris W Foster; Rick A Kittles; Charmaine D Royal
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2010-06-13       Impact factor: 4.132

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.