Literature DB >> 33184995

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'.

Felicity K Boardman1.   

Abstract

In an age of expanded genetic screening, fragile X syndrome is increasingly considered a candidate condition, given its prevalence, the absence of curative interventions, and its impact on families. However, relatively little research has explored the views of families and people living with fragile X syndrome toward population screening. This study reports on in-depth interviews with 19 participants: 3 with people diagnosed with a fragile X condition (fragile X syndrome = 2, FXTAS = 1) and 16 people with fragile X syndrome in their family (11 parents, 2 grandparents, 1 spouse, 1 sibling, and 1 aunt) living in the UK. This study reveals the complexity of attitudes within this group and the existence of genuine ambivalence toward different population screening programs. While the overwhelming majority believed that preconception and newborn genetic screening should be made available to the general public, the notion of prenatal screening was far more controversial, with only five participants expressing support for such a program. Expressivist concerns were highlighted equally both by those who supported prenatal screening, as by also those who did not. Participants who supported prenatal screening drew clear distinctions between people with fragile X syndrome and the condition itself, in order to neutralize expressivist concerns and existential threat. However, for others, this division was challenging to maintain. Impairment effects associated with fragile X syndrome, more specifically, its implications for behavior, intellect, and personality, made it harder for some participants to conceptually separate the person from their condition. This study concludes that screening remains a complex issue for families living with genetic conditions and that expressivist concerns affect, and are managed by, families living with different types of disability in contrasting ways. Screening for conditions that affect personality, behavior, and intellect produces unique iterations of expressivism, identity, and stigmatization that families produce specific, and creative, strategies to navigate.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Genetic Counseling published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attitudes; expressivist objection; fragile X syndrome; identity; population screening; stigma

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33184995      PMCID: PMC7894324          DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1355

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Genet Couns        ISSN: 1059-7700            Impact factor:   2.717


  41 in total

1.  Parents' decisions to screen newborns for FMR1 gene expansions in a pilot research project.

Authors:  Debra Skinner; Summer Choudhury; John Sideris; Sonia Guarda; Allen Buansi; Myra Roche; Cynthia Powell; Donald B Bailey
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-05-29       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  "It's about having the choice": stakeholder perceptions of population-based genetic carrier screening for fragile X syndrome.

Authors:  Alison D Archibald; Chriselle L Hickerton; Alice M Jaques; Samantha Wake; Jonathan Cohen; Sylvia A Metcalfe
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2012-12-13       Impact factor: 2.802

3.  Feasibility and acceptance of screening for fragile X mutations in low-risk pregnancies.

Authors:  M Ryynänen; S Heinonen; M Makkonen; E Kajanoja; A Mannermaa; K Pertti
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  1999 Feb-Mar       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  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

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.  Penetrance of the fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome in a premutation carrier population.

Authors:  Sébastien Jacquemont; Randi J Hagerman; Maureen A Leehey; Deborah A Hall; Richard A Levine; James A Brunberg; Lin Zhang; Tristan Jardini; Louise W Gane; Susan W Harris; Kristin Herman; James Grigsby; Claudia M Greco; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; Flora Tassone; Paul J Hagerman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Caregiver opinions about fragile X population screening.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey; Ellen Bishop; Melissa Raspa; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Preventing lives affected by hemophilia: A mixed methods study of the views of adults with hemophilia and their families toward genetic screening.

Authors:  Felicity K Boardman; Rachel Hale; Raksha Gohel; Philip J Young
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 2.183

9.  Should we implement population screening for fragile X?

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

Review 10.  Early Identification of Fragile X Syndrome through Expanded Newborn Screening.

Authors:  Katherine C Okoniewski; Anne C Wheeler; Stacey Lee; Beth Boyea; Melissa Raspa; Jennifer L Taylor; Donald B Bailey
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2019-01-03
View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.