Knowledge, attitudes and preferences regarding reproductive genetic carrier screening among reproductive-aged men and women in Flanders (Belgium).
Journal
European journal of human genetics : EJHG
ISSN: 1476-5438
Titre abrégé: Eur J Hum Genet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9302235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
received:
15
10
2021
accepted:
24
02
2022
revised:
12
01
2022
pubmed:
20
3
2022
medline:
4
11
2022
entrez:
19
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Through carrier screening couples at-risk of conceiving a child with an autosomal recessive or X-linked condition can be identified prior to conception. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge, attitudes and preferences regarding reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) among reproductive-aged men and women in Flanders (Belgium). Women and men of reproductive age visiting their pharmacist were invited to answer a self-administered questionnaire. Prior to filling in the questionnaire, participants were asked to read an information leaflet explaining some key concepts about RGCS. Our sample included 387 individuals of reproductive age, of which 68.5% were female and 31.5% were male. Most of the participants were below 34 years old (72.9%), didn't have children (68.6%) and were currently in a relationship (69.1%). Offering RGCS to couples that want to have children was found acceptable by 86% of participants. However, fewer participants would consider RGCS for themselves in the future (61%). We observed a positive correlation between attitude score/knowledge score and the intention to have RGCS. Half of the participants (50.9%) preferred the disclosure of individual test results. Most of participants indicated that RGCS should be offered through the gynecologist (81.1%), followed by the GP (71.5%) and the Centre for Human Genetics (64.8%). About 68.9% of participants were willing to pay out-of-pocket for an RGCS test. We recommend that RGCS should ideally be implemented through a tailored implementation strategy whereby individual needs and preferences can be taken into account.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35304601
doi: 10.1038/s41431-022-01082-1
pii: 10.1038/s41431-022-01082-1
pmc: PMC9626621
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1255-1261Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.
Références
Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Cornel MC, van El CG, Forzano F, et al. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:e1–e12.
doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.271
pubmed: 26980105
pmcid: 4867464
Morris JK, Law MR, Wald NJ. Is cascade testing a sensible method of screening a population for autosomal recessive disorders? Am J Med Genet A. 2004;128A:271–5.
doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30024
pubmed: 15216548
Archibald AD, Smith MJ, Burgess T, Scarff KL, Elliott J, Hunt CE, et al. Reproductive genetic carrier screening for cystic fibrosis, fragile X syndrome, and spinal muscular atrophy in Australia: outcomes of 12,000 tests. Genet Med. 2018;20:513–23.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2017.134
pubmed: 29261177
Delatycki MB, Alkuraya F, Archibald A, Castellani C, Cornel M, Grody WW, et al. International perspectives on the implementation of reproductive carrier screening. Prenat Diagn. 2020;40:301–10.
doi: 10.1002/pd.5611
pubmed: 31774570
Best S, Long J, Theodorou T, Hatem S, Lake R, Archibald A, et al. Health practitioners’ perceptions of the barriers and enablers to the implementation of reproductive genetic carrier screening: a systematic review. Prenat Diagn. 2021;41:708–19.
doi: 10.1002/pd.5914
pubmed: 33533079
pmcid: 8252081
Braithwaite J, Marks D, Taylor N. Harnessing implementation science to improve care quality and patient safety: a systematic review of targeted literature. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26:321–9.
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu047
pubmed: 24796491
Van Steijvoort E, Devolder H, Geysen I, Van Epperzeel S, Peeters H, Peeraer K, et al. Expanded carrier screening in Flanders (Belgium): an online survey on the perspectives of nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Per Med. 2021;18:361–73.
doi: 10.2217/pme-2020-0155
pubmed: 34086508
Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5.
doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
pubmed: 28029643
pmcid: 4205511
van Dijke I, Lakeman P, Sabiri N, Rusticus H, Ottenheim CPE, Mathijssen IB, et al. Couples’ experiences with expanded carrier screening: evaluation of a university hospital screening offer. Eur J Hum Genet. 2021;29:1252–58.
Bell CJ, Dinwiddie DL, Miller NA, Hateley SL, Ganusova EE, Mudge J, et al. Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next-generation sequencing. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:65ra4.
doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001756
pubmed: 21228398
pmcid: 3740116
Mello S, Stifano S, Tan AS, Sanders-Jackson A, Bigman CA. Gendered Conceptions of Preconception Health: a thematic analysis of men’s and women’s beliefs about responsibility for preconception health behavior. J Health Commun. 2020;25:374–84.
doi: 10.1080/10810730.2020.1775728
pubmed: 32602417
Almeling R, Waggoner MR. More and less than equal: how men factor in the reproductive equation. Gend Soc. 2013;27:821–42.
doi: 10.1177/0891243213484510
Johnston J, Zacharias RL. The Future of reproductive autonomy. Hastings Cent Rep. 2017;47:S6–S11.
doi: 10.1002/hast.789
pubmed: 29171894
Robson SJ, Caramins M, Saad M, Suthers G. Socioeconomic status and uptake of reproductive carrier screening in Australia. Aust Nz J Obstet Gyn. 2020;60:976–9.
doi: 10.1111/ajo.13206
Nijmeijer SCM, Conijn T, Lakeman P, Henneman L, Wijburg FA, Haverman L. Attitudes of relatives of mucopolysaccharidosis type III patients toward preconception expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:1331–40.
doi: 10.1038/s41431-020-0648-2
pubmed: 32483342
pmcid: 7609293