Kim C A Holtkamp1, Inge B Mathijssen2, Phillis Lakeman2, Merel C van Maarle2, Wybo J Dondorp3, Lidewij Henneman1, Martina C Cornel1. 1. Department of Clinical Genetics, Section of Community Genetics and EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Research Institutes CAPHRI and GROW, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Background: Carrier screening for autosomal recessive disorders aims to facilitate reproductive decision-making by identifying couples with a 1-in-4 risk in every pregnancy of having an affected child. Except for a few countries or regions, carrier screening is not widely offered and is mostly ancestry-based. Technological advances enable carrier screening for multiple diseases simultaneously allowing universal screening regardless of ancestry (population-based expanded carrier screening). It is important to study how this can be successfully implemented. This study therefore aims to identify critical factors involved in successful implementation, from a user perspective, by learning from already implemented initiatives. Methods: Factors associated with successful implementation were identified by: (i) a literature review and (ii) two case studies; studying experiences with carrier screening in two high-risk communities (a Dutch founder population and the Ashkenazi Jewish population), including a survey among community members. Results: Factors identified were familiarity with (specific) genetic diseases and its availability, high perceived benefits of screening (e.g. screening avoids much suffering), acceptance of reproductive options, perceived risk of being a carrier and low perceived social barriers (e.g. stigmatization). In contrast to the Jewish community, the initial demand for screening in the Dutch founder population did not entirely come from the community itself. However, the large social cohesion of the community facilitated the implementation process. Conclusion: To ensure successful implementation of population-based expanded carrier screening, efforts should be made to increase knowledge about genetic diseases, create awareness and address personal benefits of screening in a non-directive way.
Background: Carrier screening for autosomal recessive disorders aims to facilitate reproductive decision-making by identifying couples with a 1-in-4 risk in every pregnancy of having an affected child. Except for a few countries or regions, carrier screening is not widely offered and is mostly ancestry-based. Technological advances enable carrier screening for multiple diseases simultaneously allowing universal screening regardless of ancestry (population-based expanded carrier screening). It is important to study how this can be successfully implemented. This study therefore aims to identify critical factors involved in successful implementation, from a user perspective, by learning from already implemented initiatives. Methods: Factors associated with successful implementation were identified by: (i) a literature review and (ii) two case studies; studying experiences with carrier screening in two high-risk communities (a Dutch founder population and the Ashkenazi Jewish population), including a survey among community members. Results: Factors identified were familiarity with (specific) genetic diseases and its availability, high perceived benefits of screening (e.g. screening avoids much suffering), acceptance of reproductive options, perceived risk of being a carrier and low perceived social barriers (e.g. stigmatization). In contrast to the Jewish community, the initial demand for screening in the Dutch founder population did not entirely come from the community itself. However, the large social cohesion of the community facilitated the implementation process. Conclusion: To ensure successful implementation of population-based expanded carrier screening, efforts should be made to increase knowledge about genetic diseases, create awareness and address personal benefits of screening in a non-directive way.
Authors: Holly Etchegary; Beth Potter; Heather Howley; Mario Cappelli; Doug Coyle; Ian Graham; Mark Walker; Brenda Wilson Journal: Genet Test Date: 2008-03
Authors: Alison D Archibald; Alice M Jaques; Samantha Wake; Veronica R Collins; Jonathan Cohen; Sylvia A Metcalfe Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Nathan S Consedine; Carol Magai; Yulia S Krivoshekova; Lynn Ryzewicz; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Liane Ioannou; Belinda J McClaren; John Massie; Sharon Lewis; Sylvia A Metcalfe; Laura Forrest; Martin B Delatycki Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Jan S Voorwinden; Anne H Buitenhuis; Erwin Birnie; Anneke M Lucassen; Marian A Verkerk; Irene M van Langen; Mirjam Plantinga; Adelita V Ranchor Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 4.246
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
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
Authors: Ivy van Dijke; Carla G van El; Phillis Lakeman; Mariëtte Goddijn; Tessel Rigter; Martina C Cornel; Lidewij Henneman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Scott C Bell; Marcus A Mall; Hector Gutierrez; Milan Macek; Susan Madge; Jane C Davies; Pierre-Régis Burgel; Elizabeth Tullis; Claudio Castaños; Carlo Castellani; Catherine A Byrnes; Fiona Cathcart; Sanjay H Chotirmall; Rebecca Cosgriff; Irmgard Eichler; Isabelle Fajac; Christopher H Goss; Pavel Drevinek; Philip M Farrell; Anna M Gravelle; Trudy Havermans; Nicole Mayer-Hamblett; Nataliya Kashirskaya; Eitan Kerem; Joseph L Mathew; Edward F McKone; Lutz Naehrlich; Samya Z Nasr; Gabriela R Oates; Ciaran O'Neill; Ulrike Pypops; Karen S Raraigh; Steven M Rowe; Kevin W Southern; Sheila Sivam; Anne L Stephenson; Marco Zampoli; Felix Ratjen Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 30.700
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
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
Authors: J C Harper; K Aittomäki; P Borry; M C Cornel; G de Wert; W Dondorp; J Geraedts; L Gianaroli; K Ketterson; I Liebaers; K Lundin; H Mertes; M Morris; G Pennings; K Sermon; C Spits; S Soini; A P A van Montfoort; A Veiga; J R Vermeesch; S Viville; M Macek Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 4.246