Literature DB >> 26792268

Patients' ratings of genetic conditions validate a taxonomy to simplify decisions about preconception carrier screening via genome sequencing.

Michael C Leo1, Carmit McMullen1, Benjamin S Wilfond2, Frances L Lynch1, Jacob A Reiss1, Marian J Gilmore3, Patricia Himes3, Tia L Kauffman1, James V Davis1, Gail P Jarvik4, Jonathan S Berg5, Cary Harding6, Kathleen A Kennedy3, Dana Kostiner Simpson3, Denise I Quigley3, C Sue Richards6, Alan F Rope3, Katrina A B Goddard1.   

Abstract

Advances in genome sequencing and gene discovery have created opportunities to efficiently assess more genetic conditions than ever before. Given the large number of conditions that can be screened, the implementation of expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing will require practical methods of simplifying decisions about the conditions for which patients want to be screened. One method to simplify decision making is to generate a taxonomy based on expert judgment. However, expert perceptions of condition attributes used to classify these conditions may differ from those used by patients. To understand whether expert and patient perceptions differ, we asked women who had received preconception genetic carrier screening in the last 3 years to fill out a survey to rate the attributes (predictability, controllability, visibility, and severity) of several autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions. These conditions were classified into one of five taxonomy categories developed by subject experts (significantly shortened lifespan, serious medical problems, mild medical problems, unpredictable medical outcomes, and adult-onset conditions). A total of 193 women provided 739 usable ratings across 20 conditions. The mean ratings and correlations demonstrated that participants made distinctions across both attributes and categories. Aggregated mean attribute ratings across categories demonstrated logical consistency between the key features of each attribute and category, although participants perceived little difference between the mild and serious categories. This study provides empirical evidence for the validity of our proposed taxonomy, which will simplify patient decisions for results they would like to receive from preconception carrier screening via genome sequencing.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  gene carrier testing; genetic condition taxonomy; genetics; genome sequencing; patient perceptions

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26792268      PMCID: PMC4824299          DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.37477

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


  16 in total

1.  Risk as feelings.

Authors:  G F Loewenstein; E U Weber; C K Hsee; N Welch
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 2.  Screening for thalassemia: a model of success.

Authors:  Antonio Cao; Maria Cristina Rosatelli; Giovanni Monni; Renzo Galanello
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.844

Review 3.  Prenatal diagnosis for alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency.

Authors:  Diane W Cox
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.050

4.  Affect, risk, and decision making.

Authors:  Paul Slovic; Ellen Peters; Melissa L Finucane; Donald G Macgregor
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.267

Review 5.  Risky feelings: why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-08-23

Review 6.  Genetic screening for low-penetrance variants in protein-coding genes.

Authors:  Jill Waalen; Ernest Beutler
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 8.929

7.  Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Tanya M Harrell; Seema M Jamal; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  ACMG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  ACMG position statement on prenatal/preconception expanded carrier screening.

Authors:  Wayne W Grody; Barry H Thompson; Anthony R Gregg; Lora H Bean; Kristin G Monaghan; Adele Schneider; Roger V Lebo
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  It's complicated: criteria for policy decisions for the clinical integration of genome-scale sequencing for reproductive decision making.

Authors:  Benjamin S Wilfond; Katrina Ab Goddard
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.183

View more
  10 in total

1.  Reasons for Declining Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening Using Genome Sequencing.

Authors:  Marian J Gilmore; Jennifer Schneider; James V Davis; Tia L Kauffman; Michael C Leo; Kellene Bergen; Jacob A Reiss; Patricia Himes; Elissa Morris; Carol Young; Carmit McMullen; Benjamin S Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  The impact of genomics on health outcomes, quality, and safety.

Authors:  Kathleen A McCormick; Kathleen A Calzone
Journal:  Nurs Manage       Date:  2016-04

3.  Clinician-Stakeholders' Perspectives on Using Patient Portals to Return Lynch Syndrome Screening Results.

Authors:  Diane M Korngiebel; Kathleen M West; Wylie Burke
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Genome sequencing and carrier testing: decisions on categorization and whether to disclose results of carrier testing.

Authors:  Patricia Himes; Tia L Kauffman; Kristin R Muessig; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Michael O Dorschner; Marian Gilmore; Deborah A Nickerson; Jacob A Reiss; C Sue Richards; Alan F Rope; Dana K Simpson; Benjamin S Wilfond; Gail P Jarvik; Katrina A B Goddard
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 8.822

5.  The role of experiential knowledge within attitudes towards genetic carrier screening: A comparison of people with and without experience of spinal muscular atrophy.

Authors:  Felicity K Boardman; Philip J Young; Oliver Warren; Frances E Griffiths
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Population-based preconception carrier screening: how potential users from the general population view a test for 50 serious diseases.

Authors:  Mirjam Plantinga; Erwin Birnie; Kristin M Abbott; Richard J Sinke; Anneke M Lucassen; Juliette Schuurmans; Seyma Kaplan; Marian A Verkerk; Adelita V Ranchor; Irene M van Langen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Impairment Experiences, Identity and Attitudes Towards Genetic Screening: the Views of People with Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

Authors:  Felicity K Boardman; Philip J Young; Frances E Griffiths
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  How do genetically disabled adults view selective reproduction? Impairment, identity, and genetic screening.

Authors:  Felicity K Boardman; Rachel Hale
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2018-09-09       Impact factor: 2.183

9.  Responsibility, identity, and genomic sequencing: A comparison of published recommendations and patient perspectives on accepting or declining incidental findings.

Authors:  Felicity Boardman; Rachel Hale
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2018-10-28       Impact factor: 2.183

Review 10.  The evolving landscape of expanded carrier screening: challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Stephanie A Kraft; Devan Duenas; Benjamin S Wilfond; Katrina A B Goddard
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 8.822

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.