Literature DB >> 29321671

Preconception carrier screening for multiple disorders: evaluation of a screening offer in a Dutch founder population.

Inge B Mathijssen1, Kim C A Holtkamp2,3, Cecile P E Ottenheim4, Janneke M C van Eeten-Nijman4, Phillis Lakeman4, Hanne Meijers-Heijboer4,2, Merel C van Maarle4, Lidewij Henneman2,3.   

Abstract

Technological developments have enabled carrier screening for multiple disorders. This study evaluated experiences with a preconception carrier screening offer for four recessive disorders in a Dutch founder population. Questionnaires were completed by 182 attendees pretesting and posttesting and by 137 non-attendees. Semistructured interviews were conducted with seven of the eight carrier couples. Attendees were mainly informed about the existence of screening by friends/colleagues (49%) and family members (44%). Familiarity with the genetic disorders was high. Knowledge after counseling increased (p < 0.001); however, still 9%, compared to 29% before counseling, wrongly mentioned an increased risk of having an affected child if both parents are carriers of different disorders. Most attendees (97%) recalled their test results correctly, but two couples reported being carrier of another disorder than reported. Overall, 63% felt worried while waiting for results but anxiety levels returned to normal afterwards. In all, 2/39 (5%) carriers felt less healthy. Screened individuals were very satisfied; they did not regret testing (97%) and would recommend testing to others (97%). The majority (94%) stated that couples should always have a pretest consultation, preferably by a genetic counselor rather than their general practitioner (83%). All carrier couples made reproductive decisions based on their results. Main reason for non-attendance was unawareness of the screening offer. With expanded carrier screening, adequately informing couples pretest and posttesting is of foremost importance. Close influencers (family/friends) can be used to raise awareness of a screening offer. Our findings provide lessons for the implementation of expanded carrier screening panels in other communities and other settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29321671      PMCID: PMC5838981          DOI: 10.1038/s41431-017-0056-4

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


  27 in total

1.  Participation in preconceptional carrier couple screening: characteristics, attitudes, and knowledge of both partners.

Authors:  L Henneman; I Bramsen; H M van der Ploeg; H J Adèr; H E van der Horst; J J Gille; L P ten Kate
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 6.318

2.  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

3.  Advantages of expanded universal carrier screening: what is at stake?

Authors:  Sanne van der Hout; Kim Ca Holtkamp; Lidewij Henneman; Guido de Wert; Wybo J Dondorp
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Knowledge, attitudes, and barriers to carrier screening for the Ashkenazi Jewish panel: a Florida experience : Education and Barriers assessment for Jewish Genetic Diseases.

Authors:  Jessica R L Warsch; Sean Warsch; Elizabeth Herman; Lauren Zakarin; Adele Schneider; Jodi Hoffman; Deborah Wasserman; Deborah Barbouth
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2014-01-12

5.  "I'm Healthy, It's Not Going To Be Me": Exploring experiences of carriers identified through a population reproductive genetic carrier screening panel in Australia.

Authors:  Catherine A Beard; David J Amor; Louisa Di Pietro; Alison D Archibald
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 2.802

6.  Attitudes toward fragile X mutation carrier testing from women identified in a general population survey.

Authors:  Aimee Anido; Lisa M Carlson; Stephanie L Sherman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-02-13       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  An empirical estimate of carrier frequencies for 400+ causal Mendelian variants: results from an ethnically diverse clinical sample of 23,453 individuals.

Authors:  Gabriel A Lazarin; Imran S Haque; Shivani Nazareth; Kevin Iori; A Scott Patterson; Jessica L Jacobson; John R Marshall; William K Seltzer; Pasquale Patrizio; Eric A Evans; Balaji S Srinivasan
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-09-13       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Factors for successful implementation of population-based expanded carrier screening: learning from existing initiatives.

Authors:  Kim C A Holtkamp; Inge B Mathijssen; Phillis Lakeman; Merel C van Maarle; Wybo J Dondorp; Lidewij Henneman; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 3.367

9.  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

10.  Population-based carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: a systematic review of 23 years of research.

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

View more
  7 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

Review 2.  Incorporating patient perspectives in the development of a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening: a sequential systematic review.

Authors:  Ebony Richardson; Alison McEwen; Toby Newton-John; Ashley Crook; Chris Jacobs
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 5.351

Review 3.  The evolving role of genetic tests in reproductive medicine.

Authors:  Federica Cariati; Valeria D'Argenio; Rossella Tomaiuolo
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 5.531

4.  Molecular classification of blood and bleeding disorder genes.

Authors:  Batoul Baz; Mohamed Abouelhoda; Dorota Monies; Tarek Owaidah; Majed Dasouki; Nada Al Tassan
Journal:  NPJ Genom Med       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 8.617

Review 5.  Reproductive options for families at risk of Osteogenesis Imperfecta: a review.

Authors:  Lidiia Zhytnik; Kadri Simm; Andres Salumets; Maire Peters; Aare Märtson; Katre Maasalu
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 4.123

6.  Couples' experiences with expanded carrier screening: evaluation of a university hospital screening offer.

Authors:  Ivy van Dijke; Phillis Lakeman; Naoual Sabiri; Hanna Rusticus; Cecile P E Ottenheim; Inge B Mathijssen; Martina C Cornel; Lidewij Henneman
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.246

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.