Literature DB >> 23589535

Expanded carrier screening in reproductive healthcare: perspectives from genetics professionals.

D Cho1, M L McGowan, J Metcalfe, R R Sharp.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: How do genetics professionals assess the potential benefits and challenges of expanded carrier screening (ECS) in reproductive healthcare? SUMMARY ANSWER: Genetics professionals believe that current ECS products have major limitations and are not ready for routine use in reproductive healthcare. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Non-targeted approaches to carrier screening have been met with uneven enthusiasm from relevant professional organizations. With declining genotyping costs, it is reasonable to expect that the number of genetic conditions evaluated by carrier-screening products will continue to increase. Reproductive healthcare providers will play a critical role in the adoption of ECS and need to be prepared for the potential challenges that lie ahead. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Focus groups were convened at six academic medical centers in the USA in March 2011 to examine genetics professionals' views on ECS. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: Forty genetic professionals participated in six focus groups for this study. A clinical case report was presented to each focus group to examine participants' opinions about the use of highly multiplexed forms of carrier screening in reproductive healthcare. Focus group transcripts were analyzed for major themes and thematic density across sites using qualitative data analysis software (ATLAS.ti v5.8). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Participants believed that current ECS products have major limitations pertaining to the analysis of select alleles and genetic mutations. Participants highlighted multiple interpretive and counseling challenges that reproductive healthcare providers may face in communicating ECS results to patients. Participants stressed the importance of communicating these and other limitations to patients before recommending ECS. Participants recommended collaboration with genetic counselors and medical geneticists in providing ECS. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: To the extent that ECS products have not been widely used to date, participants may have had limited familiarity and direct clinical experience with these products. Given that this study was conducted with genetic professionals from academic medical centers in the USA, participant perspectives may not be representative of professional practices and norms in other healthcare settings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: In considering the use of ECS products in their practices, reproductive healthcare providers may find it helpful to consider the perspectives of genetics professionals. These specialists have considerable experience with diverse forms of genetic testing and can provide valuable insights regarding new genomic risk assessment tools such as ECS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  carrier screening; focus groups; genetics; reproductive healthcare providers

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23589535      PMCID: PMC3657126          DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  22 in total

Review 1.  Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education.

Authors:  Nancy L Kondracki; Nancy S Wellman; Daniel R Amundson
Journal:  J Nutr Educ Behav       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.045

2.  Carrier screening panels for Ashkenazi Jews: is more better?

Authors:  Jennifer R Leib; Sarah E Gollust; Sara Chandros Hull; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 8.822

3.  Implementation and evaluation of a genetics curriculum to improve obstetrician-gynecologist residents' knowledge and skills in genetic diagnosis and counseling.

Authors:  Charles J Macri; Nancy D Gaba; Lauren M Sitzer; Lisa Freese; Susanne L Bathgate; John W Larsen
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane; Daniel R Masys; Russ B Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis, Gaucher disease, and Tay-Sachs disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish population: the first 1000 cases at New York University Medical Center, New York, NY.

Authors:  D Kronn; V Jansen; H Ostrer
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1998-04-13

6.  Genetic testing integration panels (GTIPs): a novel approach for considering integration of direct-to-consumer and other new genetic tests into patient care.

Authors:  Wendy R Uhlmann; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-14       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Knowledge of genetics among residents in obstetrics and gynecology.

Authors:  M A Kershner; E A Hammond; A E Donnenfeld
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  UK clinicians' knowledge of and attitudes to the prenatal diagnosis of single gene disorders.

Authors:  H V Firth; R H Lindenbaum
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 6.318

9.  Laboratory standards and guidelines for population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening.

Authors:  W W Grody; G R Cutting; K W Klinger; C S Richards; M S Watson; R J Desnick
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Cystic fibrosis population carrier screening: 2004 revision of American College of Medical Genetics mutation panel.

Authors:  Michael S Watson; Garry R Cutting; Robert J Desnick; Deborah A Driscoll; Katherine Klinger; Michael Mennuti; Glenn E Palomaki; Bradley W Popovich; Victoria M Pratt; Elizabeth M Rohlfs; Charles M Strom; C Sue Richards; David R Witt; Wayne W Grody
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  23 in total

1.  Structurating Expanded Genetic Carrier Screening: A Longitudinal Analysis of Online News Coverage.

Authors:  Heather E Canary; Yvonne K Clark; Avery Holton
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2018-05-25

2.  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

3.  Business and Breakthrough: Framing (Expanded) Genetic Carrier Screening for the Public.

Authors:  Avery E Holton; Heather E Canary; Bob Wong
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2016-08-02

4.  Patient actions and reactions after receiving negative results from expanded carrier screening.

Authors:  S A Kraft; J L Schneider; M C Leo; T L Kauffman; J V Davis; K M Porter; C K McMullen; B S Wilfond; K A B Goddard
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 4.438

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.  Adopted Individuals' Views on the Utility and Value of Expanded Carrier Screening.

Authors:  Sara Spencer; Sarah Ewing; Kathryn Calcagno; Suzanne O'Neill
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Swedish healthcare providers' perceptions of preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS)-a qualitative study.

Authors:  A Matar; U Kihlbom; A T Höglund
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-05-25

8.  Should Clinicians Leave "Expanded" Carrier Screening Decisions to Patients?

Authors:  Amanda Fakih; Kayte Spector-Bagdady
Journal:  AMA J Ethics       Date:  2019-10-01

9.  Pregnant Women's Perspectives on Expanded Carrier Screening.

Authors:  Lauren Propst; Gwendolyn Connor; Megan Hinton; Tabitha Poorvu; Jeffrey Dungan
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Expanded carrier screening in an infertile population: how often is clinical decision making affected?

Authors:  Jason M Franasiak; Meir Olcha; Paul A Bergh; Kathleen H Hong; Marie D Werner; Eric J Forman; Rebekah S Zimmerman; Richard T Scott
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.