William D Winkelman1, Stacey A Missmer, Dale Myers, Elizabeth S Ginsburg. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave., M1483, Box 0132, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA, winkelmanw@obgyn.ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the perspectives of the United States population towards the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in various clinical scenarios. METHODS: Online cross-sectional population based questionnaire of a nationally representative sample according to age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, education and religion. RESULTS: A total of 1006 completed the questionnaire with an overall response rate of 94%. A majority supported PGD for diseases fatal early in life or those causing lifelong disability (72.9 and 66.7%, respectively); only 48.0% supported PGD for diseases that manifest late in life. Respondents were more supportive of PGD for genetic diseases if they were aware of PGD prior to the survey (OR = 1.64; CI = 1.13-2.39). However, a small proportion were in favor of genetically-based trait selection: 21.1% supported PGD for sex selection, 14.6% for physical traits and 18.9% for personality traits. Compared to women, men were nearly two- to three-fold more supportive of PGD for sex selection (OR = 1.65; CI = 1.20-2.78), physical traits (OR = 2.38; CI = 1.60-3.48) and personality traits (OR = 2.31; CI = .64-3.26). Compared to Caucasians, Asians (OR = 3.87; CI = 1.71-8.78) and African Americans (OR = 1.61; CI = 1.04-2.74) were more supportive of PGD for sex selection. CONCLUSIONS: In a nationally representative sample, a majority supported PGD to identify early onset diseases. We noted significant variation in opinions by sex, race, and education. There was more support among those with prior knowledge of PGD suggesting that education about PGD may foster favorable opinions. This study identifies public knowledge and attitudes that may be used to shape future research hypotheses and clinical policies.
PURPOSE: To study the perspectives of the United States population towards the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in various clinical scenarios. METHODS: Online cross-sectional population based questionnaire of a nationally representative sample according to age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, education and religion. RESULTS: A total of 1006 completed the questionnaire with an overall response rate of 94%. A majority supported PGD for diseases fatal early in life or those causing lifelong disability (72.9 and 66.7%, respectively); only 48.0% supported PGD for diseases that manifest late in life. Respondents were more supportive of PGD for genetic diseases if they were aware of PGD prior to the survey (OR = 1.64; CI = 1.13-2.39). However, a small proportion were in favor of genetically-based trait selection: 21.1% supported PGD for sex selection, 14.6% for physical traits and 18.9% for personality traits. Compared to women, men were nearly two- to three-fold more supportive of PGD for sex selection (OR = 1.65; CI = 1.20-2.78), physical traits (OR = 2.38; CI = 1.60-3.48) and personality traits (OR = 2.31; CI = .64-3.26). Compared to Caucasians, Asians (OR = 3.87; CI = 1.71-8.78) and African Americans (OR = 1.61; CI = 1.04-2.74) were more supportive of PGD for sex selection. CONCLUSIONS: In a nationally representative sample, a majority supported PGD to identify early onset diseases. We noted significant variation in opinions by sex, race, and education. There was more support among those with prior knowledge of PGD suggesting that education about PGD may foster favorable opinions. This study identifies public knowledge and attitudes that may be used to shape future research hypotheses and clinical policies.
Authors: Pui Wah Hui; Yung Hang Lam; Min Chen; Mary Hoi Yin Tang; William Shu Biu Yeung; Ernest Hung Yu Ng; Pak Chung Ho Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Jennifer L Young; Julie Mak; Talia Stanley; Michelle Bass; Mildred K Cho; Holly K Tabor Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Ibrahim H Shah; Erin E Salo-Mullen; Kimberly A Amoroso; David Kelsen; Zsofia K Stadler; Jada G Hamilton Journal: Hered Cancer Clin Pract Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Fehmida Tehsin; Fatimah H Almutawah; Hawra K Almutawah; Maryam E Alwabari; Zahra M AlSultan; Hassan S Buawadh Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-12-14