Literature DB >> 30068663

Measuring the impact of genetic knowledge on intentions and attitudes of the community towards expanded preconception carrier screening.

Royston Ong1,2, Denise Howting1,2, Alethea Rea3, Hayley Christian4, Pauline Charman5, Caron Molster6, Gianina Ravenscroft1,2, Nigel George Laing1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preconception carrier screening (PCS) provides the potential to empower couples to make reproductive choices before having an affected child. An important question is what factors influence the decision to use or not use PCS.
METHODS: We analysed the relationship between knowledge, attitudes and intentions to participate in PCS using logistic regression in 832 participants in Western Australia.
RESULTS: Two-thirds of participants said they would take the test, with 92% of these supporting screening for diseases reducing the lifespan of children and infants. Those who had good genetic knowledge were seven times more likely to intend to use PCS (p≤0.001), while those with high genetic knowledge were four times more likely to (p=0.002) and raised concerns such as insurance and confidentiality.Decreasing genetic knowledge correlated positively with religiosity and apprehension (p≤0.001), which correlated negatively with intention to use PCS (p≤0.001). Increasing genetic knowledge correlated positively with factors representing positive attitudes (p≤0.001), which correlated positively with intention to use PCS (p≤0.001). Many participants with good genetic knowledge nevertheless answered questions that tested understanding incorrectly.80% of participants stated they would prefer to access the test through their general practitioners and 30% would pay up to $A200.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge is instrumental in influencing participation. Having good genetic knowledge may not be enough to understand core concepts of PCS and may impact informed decision-making. This study recommends that continuous education of health professionals and thus the community, in PCS is crucial to reduce misconceptions. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genetic screening/counselling; getting research into practice; prevention; reproductive medicine

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30068663     DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105362

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Genet        ISSN: 0022-2593            Impact factor:   6.318


  12 in total

Review 1.  Ethical considerations in gene selection for reproductive carrier screening.

Authors:  Lisa Dive; Alison Dalton Archibald; Ainsley J Newson
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 5.881

2.  Current attitudes and preconceptions towards expanded carrier screening in the Eastern Chinese reproductive-aged population.

Authors:  Fang Zhang; Jianxin Tan; Binbin Shao; Tao Jiang; Ran Zhou; Yan Wang; Jingjing Zhang; Fengchang Qiao; Xiuqing Ji; Ya Wang; Ping Hu; Zhengfeng Xu
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  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

4.  Preconception expanded carrier screening: a focus group study with relatives of mucopolysaccharidosis type III patients and the general population.

Authors:  Thirsa Conijn; Ivy van Dijke; Lotte Haverman; Phillis Lakeman; Frits A Wijburg; Lidewij Henneman
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-03-22

Review 5.  Recent advances in understanding congenital myopathies.

Authors:  Gianina Ravenscroft; Robert J Bryson-Richardson; Kristen J Nowak; Nigel G Laing
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2018-12-11

6.  Study protocol of a multicentre cohort pilot study implementing an expanded preconception carrier-screening programme in metropolitan and regional Western Australia.

Authors:  Royston Ong; Samantha Edwards; Denise Howting; Benjamin Kamien; Karen Harrop; Gianina Ravenscroft; Mark Davis; Michael Fietz; Nicholas Pachter; John Beilby; Nigel Laing
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-16       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  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

8.  Decision-making for prenatal genetic screening: how will pregnant women navigate a growing number of aneuploidy and carrier screening options?

Authors:  Ruth M Farrell; Madelyn Pierce; Christina Collart; Meng Yao; Marissa Coleridge; Edward K Chien; Susannah S Rose; Mary Lintel; Uma Perni; Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-12-04       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening.

Authors:  Steve Sturdy; Fiona Miller; Stuart Hogarth; Natalie Armstrong; Pranesh Chakraborty; Celine Cressman; Mark Dobrow; Kathy Flitcroft; David Grossman; Russell Harris; Barbara Hoebee; Kelly Holloway; Linda Kinsinger; Marlene Krag; Olga Löblová; Ilana Löwy; Anne Mackie; John Marshall; Jane O'Hallahan; Linda Rabeneck; Angela Raffle; Lynette Reid; Graham Shortland; Robert Steele; Beth Tarini; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Bernie Towler; Nynke van der Veen; Marco Zappa
Journal:  Wellcome Open Res       Date:  2020-08-17

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.