Literature DB >> 26014427

A qualitative study to explore how professionals in the United Kingdom make decisions to test children for a sickle cell carrier status.

Melissa Noke1, Sarah Peters1, Alison Wearden1, Fiona Ulph1.   

Abstract

European guidelines recommend that, unless there are clear benefits of autosomal recessive carrier testing in childhood, it should be deferred to protect children's autonomous decision making. Although it is believed that children receive testing in the United Kingdom, it is unclear how or why professionals make decisions to provide tests. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 professionals in the United Kingdom who advise about, and undertake, childhood sickle cell trait testing. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Few professionals were aware of, or used, guidelines to inform testing decisions and instead, considered the reproductive and clinical relevance of testing, and autonomous rights of parents. Many professionals believed testing was important and readily offered it to parents. Professionals who discouraged testing were met with parental resistance and often provided testing when conflict was difficult to manage. Children were rarely considered to be capable of making decisions and few were engaged in discussions. When consulted, older children demonstrated interest, but younger children usually declined testing. Wide variation in testing advice emerged because of opposing beliefs about children's best interests and potential benefits or harms of testing. An explanation of how children's best interests should be determined in light of conflicting evidence regarding the psychosocial and clinical implications of carrier status is needed. Improved awareness of guidelines might encourage professionals to support the role of children in testing decisions. Strategies are also required to help professionals determine children's cognitive capacity and to protect children's future autonomy during discussions with persistent parents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26014427      PMCID: PMC4717195          DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.104

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


  29 in total

1.  A qualitative study exploring genetic counsellors' experiences of counselling children.

Authors:  Fiona Ulph; James Leong; Cris Glazebrook; Ellen Townsend
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Children's bioethics and the zone of parental discretion.

Authors:  Lynn Gillam
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2010-09

3.  Newborn screening for sickle cell disease: whose reproductive benefit?

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Providing genetic risk information to parents of newborns with sickle cell trait: role of the general practitioner in neonatal screening.

Authors:  Fleur Vansenne; Corianne A J M de Borgie; Monica Legdeur; Marjo Oey Spauwen; Marjolein Peters
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2011-05-16

5.  Constructing "best interests": genetic testing of children in families with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Els Geelen; Ine Van Hoyweghen; Pieter A Doevendans; Carlo L M Marcelis; Klasien Horstman
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2011-07-07       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Parents' and children's communication about genetic risk: a qualitative study, learning from families' experiences.

Authors:  Alison Metcalfe; Gill Plumridge; Jane Coad; Andrew Shanks; Paramjit Gill
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-02-16       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Communication of carrier status information following universal newborn screening for sickle cell disorders and cystic fibrosis: qualitative study of experience and practice.

Authors:  J Kai; F Ulph; T Cullinan; N Qureshi
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.014

8.  Genetic testing in children and young people.

Authors:  Michael Parker
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Are guidelines for genetic testing of children necessary?

Authors:  Angela Fenwick
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2009-08-15       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 10.  Effects of genetic risk information on children's psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Christopher H Wade; Benjamin S Wilfond; Colleen M McBride
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  The current state of sickle cell trait: implications for reproductive and genetic counseling.

Authors:  Lydia H Pecker; Rakhi P Naik
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2018-11-30

Review 2.  The current state of sickle cell trait: implications for reproductive and genetic counseling.

Authors:  Lydia H Pecker; Rakhi P Naik
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 22.113

3.  "They Just Want to Know" - Genetic Health Professionals' Beliefs About Why Parents Want to Know their Child's Carrier Status.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Clare Delany; John Massie; Lynn Gillam
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-02-04       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Predictive Genetic Testing of Children for Adult-Onset Conditions: Negotiating Requests with Parents.

Authors:  Angela Fenwick; Mirjam Plantinga; Sandi Dheensa; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 2.537

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.