Literature DB >> 28661491

Informed decision making and psychosocial outcomes in pregnant and nonpregnant women offered population fragile X carrier screening.

Sylvia A Metcalfe1,2, Melissa Martyn1, Alice Ames1,2, Vicki Anderson1,2,3, Alison D Archibald1,2,4, Grad Dip Gen Couns1, Rob Carter5, Jonathan Cohen6, Megan Cotter1,7, M GenCouns1, William Dang8, Martin B Delatycki1,2,4, Susan Donath1,2, Samantha Edwards9, PGrad Dip Educ9, Grad Dip Gen Couns1, Robin Forbes4, Grad Dip Gen Couns1, Mioara Gavrila8, M MedSci8, Jane Halliday1,2, Chriselle Hickerton1, Melissa Hill1,10, Grad Dip Gen Couns1, Lorilli Jacobs9, PGrad Dip Ultrasound9, Vicki Petrou1, Grad Dip Gen Couns1, Loren Plunkett1, M GenCouns1, Leslie Sheffield1,4,11, F Racp1,4,11, Alison Thornton1, Grad Dip Gen Couns1, Sandra Younie5, PGrad Dip Hlth Econ5, Jon D Emery9,12.   

Abstract

PurposePopulation-based carrier screening for fragile X syndrome (FXS) is still not universally endorsed by professional organizations due to concerns around genetic counseling for complex information and potential for psychosocial harms.MethodsWe determined uptake levels, decision making, and psychosocial impact in a prospective study of pregnant and nonpregnant Australian women offered FXS carrier screening in clinical settings. Women received pretest genetic counseling, and completed questionnaires when deciding and one month later.ResultsOf 1,156 women recruited, 83.1% returned the first questionnaire with 70.6% nonpregnant and 58.8% pregnant women choosing testing (χ2=16.98, P<0.001). Overall, informed choice was high in both nonpregnant (77.4%) and pregnant (72.9%) women (χ2=0.21, P=0.644), and more tested (76.0%) than not-tested (66.7%) women (χ2=6.35, P=0.012) made an informed choice. Measures of depression, stress, and anxiety were similar to population norms for ~85% of women. Decisional conflict and regret were generally low; however, decisional uncertainty and regret were greater in pregnant than nonpregnant women, and not-tested than tested women (uncertainty: χ2=18.51, P<0.001 and χ2=43.11, P<0.001, respectively; regret: χ2=6.61, P<0.037 and χ2=35.54, P<0.001, respectively).ConclusionWe provide evidence to inform guidelines that population FXS carrier screening can be implemented with minimal psychosocial harms following appropriate information and prescreening genetic counseling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28661491     DOI: 10.1038/gim.2017.67

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  35 in total

1.  Where to Draw the Boundaries for Prenatal Carrier Screening.

Authors:  Wayne W Grody
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Association of FMR1 repeat size with ovarian dysfunction.

Authors:  A K Sullivan; M Marcus; M P Epstein; E G Allen; A E Anido; J J Paquin; M Yadav-Shah; S L Sherman
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2004-12-17       Impact factor: 6.918

3.  Symbolic sequence learning is associated with cognitive-affective profiles in female FMR1 premutation carriers.

Authors:  C M Kraan; D R Hocking; J L Bradshaw; N Georgiou-Karistianis; S A Metcalfe; A D Archibald; J Fielding; J Trollor; J Cohen; K M Cornish
Journal:  Genes Brain Behav       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.449

4.  "It's something I need to consider": decisions about carrier screening for fragile X syndrome in a population of non-pregnant women.

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

5.  A model for offering carrier screening for fragile X syndrome to nonpregnant women: results from a pilot study.

Authors:  Sylvia Metcalfe; Alice Jacques; Alison Archibald; Trent Burgess; Veronica Collins; Anna Henry; Kathleen McNamee; Leslie Sheffield; Howard Slater; Samantha Wake; Jonathan Cohen
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Offering cystic fibrosis carrier screening to an HMO population: factors associated with utilization.

Authors:  E S Tambor; B A Bernhardt; G A Chase; R R Faden; G Geller; K J Hofman; N A Holtzman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 7.  Population genetic screening programmes: principles, techniques, practices, and policies.

Authors:  Béatrice Godard; Leo ten Kate; Gerry Evers-Kiebooms; Ségolène Aymé
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.246

8.  A Pilot Study of Fragile X Syndrome Screening in Pregnant Women and Women Planning Pregnancy: Implementation, Acceptance, Awareness, and Geographic Factors.

Authors:  Ramona Alfaro Arenas; Jordi Rosell Andreo; Damián Heine Suñer
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 9.  A systematic review of population screening for fragile X syndrome.

Authors:  Melissa K Hill; Alison D Archibald; Jonathan Cohen; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Fragile X syndrome: diagnostic and carrier testing.

Authors:  Stephanie Sherman; Beth A Pletcher; Deborah A Driscoll
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  7 in total

1.  Patient characteristics, experiences and perceived value of pharmacogenetic testing from a single testing laboratory.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Yiling Liu
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.533

2.  Maternal FMR1 alleles expansion in newborns during transmission: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Rabia Shahid; Muhammad Yasin; Zia Ur Rehman; Humaira Jadoon; Haleema Tahir; Neelam Meraj; Niamat Khan; Maria Zubair; Irba Zulfiqar; Maha Nowshid; Arfa Azeem; Musarrat Jabeen; Abdul Hameed; Shamim Saleha
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 3.756

3.  Preconception expanded carrier screening: Impact of information presented by text or video on genetic knowledge and attitudes.

Authors:  Thirsa Conijn; Stephanie C M Nijmeijer; Phillis Lakeman; Lidewij Henneman; Frits A Wijburg; Lotte Haverman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  Fragile X premutation carrier screening in Pakistani preconception women in primary care consultation.

Authors:  Neelam Meraj; Muhammad Yasin; Zia Ur Rehman; Haleema Tahir; Humaira Jadoon; Niamat Khan; Rabia Shahid; Maria Zubair; Irba Zulfiqar; Musarrat Jabeen; Shahzadi Neelam; Abdul Hameed; Shamim Saleha
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 2.809

5.  Should we implement population screening for fragile X?

Authors:  David P Dimmock
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Attitudes toward population screening among people living with fragile X syndrome in the UK: 'I wouldn't wish him away, I'd just wish his fragile X syndrome away'.

Authors:  Felicity K Boardman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 2.717

7.  Couple-based expanded carrier screening provided by general practitioners to couples in the Dutch general population: psychological outcomes and reproductive intentions.

Authors:  Erwin Birnie; Juliette Schuurmans; Mirjam Plantinga; Kristin M Abbott; Angela Fenwick; Anneke Lucassen; Marjolein Y Berger; Irene M van Langen; Adelita V Ranchor
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 8.822

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.