Allison Briggs1, Parvaneh K Nouri1, Michael Galloway1, Kathleen O'Leary1,2, Nigel Pereira3, Steven R Lindheim4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, 128 Apple Street, Suite 3800 Weber CHE, Dayton, OH, 45409, USA. 2. Wright-Patterson USAF Medical Center, Dayton, OH, USA. 3. The Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Wright State University, 128 Apple Street, Suite 3800 Weber CHE, Dayton, OH, 45409, USA. steven.lindheim@wright.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is an available component of preconception and prenatal care. There is complexity around offering, administering, and following-up test results. The goal of this study is to evaluate current physicians' utilization and attitudes towards ECS in current practice. METHODS: This was a prospective qualitative survey study. A 32-question electronic survey was distributed during a 1-year period to obstetricians-gynecologists who were identified using a Qualtrics listserv database. RESULTS: While more than 90% of physicians offered ethnic-based carrier screening (CS), ECS was offered significantly less (2010, 20.6%, and 2016, 27.1%). Physicians who were not fellowship-trained in reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) preferred ethnic-based carrier screening (95.9 vs 16.8%; P < 0.001). REI subspecialists were more likely to offer ECS (80%) compared to 70% of maternal fetal medicine physicians (MFM). Physicians were comfortable discussing negative results (53.6%) compared to positive results (48.4%). Most physicians (56%) believed that ECS should not be offered until the significance of each disease is understood; 52% believed that testing should be restricted to those conditions important to couples; while 26% felt that testing should be done regardless of the clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Discussion and application of ECS has increased in clinical practice. However, lack of comfort with counseling and varying beliefs surrounding ECS continue to hinder its utilization. Further education and training programs, and subsequent evaluation are warranted.
PURPOSE: Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is an available component of preconception and prenatal care. There is complexity around offering, administering, and following-up test results. The goal of this study is to evaluate current physicians' utilization and attitudes towards ECS in current practice. METHODS: This was a prospective qualitative survey study. A 32-question electronic survey was distributed during a 1-year period to obstetricians-gynecologists who were identified using a Qualtrics listserv database. RESULTS: While more than 90% of physicians offered ethnic-based carrier screening (CS), ECS was offered significantly less (2010, 20.6%, and 2016, 27.1%). Physicians who were not fellowship-trained in reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) preferred ethnic-based carrier screening (95.9 vs 16.8%; P < 0.001). REI subspecialists were more likely to offer ECS (80%) compared to 70% of maternal fetal medicine physicians (MFM). Physicians were comfortable discussing negative results (53.6%) compared to positive results (48.4%). Most physicians (56%) believed that ECS should not be offered until the significance of each disease is understood; 52% believed that testing should be restricted to those conditions important to couples; while 26% felt that testing should be done regardless of the clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Discussion and application of ECS has increased in clinical practice. However, lack of comfort with counseling and varying beliefs surrounding ECS continue to hinder its utilization. Further education and training programs, and subsequent evaluation are warranted.
Authors: Ana Delgado; Lorena Saletti-Cuesta; Luis Andrés López-Fernández; Natalia Gil-Garrido; Juan de Dios Luna Del Castillo Journal: Respir Med Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 3.415
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
Authors: Yusuke Tsugawa; Anupam B Jena; Jose F Figueroa; E John Orav; Daniel M Blumenthal; Ashish K Jha Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Gai Elhanan; Daniel Kiser; Iva Neveux; Shaun Dabe; Alexandre Bolze; William J Metcalf; James T Lu; Joseph J Grzymski Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Sarah Jurgensmeyer; Sarah Walterman; Andrew Wagner; Kenny Wong; Annie Bao; Sarah Stueber; Sara Spencer Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.412