Literature DB >> 27225888

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

A Matar1, U Kihlbom2, A T Höglund2.   

Abstract

Reproductive autonomy, medicalization, and discrimination against disabled and parental responsibility are the main ongoing ethical debates concerning reproductive genetic screening. To examine Swedish healthcare professionals' views on preconception expanded carrier screening (ECS), a qualitative study involving academic and clinical institutions in Sweden was conducted in September 2014 to February 2015. Eleven healthcare professionals including clinicians, geneticists, a midwife, and a genetic counselor were interviewed in depth using a semi-structured interview guide. The questionnaire was constructed after reviewing the main literature and meetings with relevant healthcare providers. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and content analyzed for categories and subcategories. Participants nurtured many ethical and non-ethical concerns regarding preconception ECS. Among the ethical concerns were the potential for discrimination, medicalization, concerns with prioritization of healthcare resources, and effects on reproductive freedom. The effects of implementation of preconception ECS, its stakeholders, regulations, and motivation are some of non-ethical concerns. These concerns, if not addressed, may affect the uptake and usage of carrier screening within Swedish healthcare system. As this is a qualitative study with a small non-random sample size, the findings cannot be generalized. The participants had little to no working experience with expanded screening panels. Moreover, the interviews were conducted in English, a second language for the participants, which might have limited the expression of their views. However, the authors claim that the findings may be pertinent to similar settings in other Scandinavian countries.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27225888      PMCID: PMC4960027          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-016-0268-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  27 in total

1.  Parental duties and untreatable genetic conditions.

Authors:  H Clarkeburn
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  The nonidentity problem, disability, and the role morality of prospective parents.

Authors:  David Wasserman
Journal:  Ethics       Date:  2005-10

3.  Expanded carrier screening in reproductive medicine-points to consider: a joint statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Perinatal Quality Foundation, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Authors:  Janice G Edwards; Gerald Feldman; James Goldberg; Anthony R Gregg; Mary E Norton; Nancy C Rose; Adele Schneider; Katie Stoll; Ronald Wapner; Michael S Watson
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Knowledge and attitudes regarding expanded genetic carrier screening among women's healthcare providers.

Authors:  Kaylene Ready; Imran S Haque; Balaji S Srinivasan; John R Marshall
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  What do patients prefer: informed consent models for genetic carrier testing.

Authors:  K E Ormond; M Iris; S Banuvar; J Minogue; G J Annas; S Elias
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 6.  Population programs for the detection of couples at risk for severe monogenic genetic diseases.

Authors:  Joël Zlotogora
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 4.132

7.  Information preferences of high literacy pregnant women regarding informed consent models for genetic carrier screening.

Authors:  K E Ormond; S Banuvar; A Daly; M Iris; J Minogue; S Elias
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2008-11-14

8.  Comprehensive carrier screening and molecular diagnostic testing for recessive childhood diseases.

Authors:  Stephen Kingsmore
Journal:  PLoS Curr       Date:  2012-05-02

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.  Guidelines for diagnostic next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Gert Matthijs; Erika Souche; Mariëlle Alders; Anniek Corveleyn; Sebastian Eck; Ilse Feenstra; Valérie Race; Erik Sistermans; Marc Sturm; Marjan Weiss; Helger Yntema; Egbert Bakker; Hans Scheffer; Peter Bauer
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 4.246

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.

Authors:  Lieke M van den Heuvel; Nina van den Berg; A Cecile J W Janssens; Erwin Birnie; Lidewij Henneman; Wybo J Dondorp; Mirjam Plantinga; Irene M van Langen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 5.351

2.  Health practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to the implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: A systematic review.

Authors:  Stephanie Best; Janet Long; Tahlia Theodorou; Sarah Hatem; Rebecca Lake; Alison Archibald; Lucinda Freeman; Jeffrey Braithwaite
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Outcomes of an International Workshop on Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening: Some Considerations for Governments.

Authors:  Caron M Molster; Karla Lister; Selina Metternick-Jones; Gareth Baynam; Angus John Clarke; Volker Straub; Hugh J S Dawkins; Nigel Laing
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2017-02-24

4.  Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of genetic carrier screening in a changing landscape.

Authors:  Kim C A Holtkamp; Evelien M Vos; Tessel Rigter; Phillis Lakeman; Lidewij Henneman; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Autonomous decisions by couples in reproductive care.

Authors:  Amal Matar; Anna T Höglund; Pär Segerdahl; Ulrik Kihlbom
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-04-25       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.