Dataset Information

How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples.

ABSTRACT: Couples at increased risk of having offspring with a specific genetic disorder who want to avoid having an affected child have several reproductive options including prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). In the future, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), germline gene editing (GGE) and somatic gene editing (SGE) might become available. This study explores if, and how, availability of new genetic technologies, including NIPD, GGE, SGE, would change reproductive decision-making of high-risk couples. In 2018, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 genetically at-risk couples. Couples previously had received genetic counselling for PND and PGT, and in most cases opted for (one of) these techniques, at one Dutch Clinical Genetics Center between 2013 and 2017. Considerations participants mentioned regarding the hypothetical use of NIPD, GGE and SGE, seem similar to considerations regarding PND and PGT and are reflected in underlying concepts. These include safety and burden for mother and child, and moral considerations. Couples generally favoured NIPD over PND as this would be safe and enables earlier diagnosis. Increased opportunities of having a 'healthy' embryo and less embryo disposal were considerations in favour of GGE. Some regarded GGE as unsafe and feared slippery slope scenarios. Couples were least favourable towards SGE compared to choosing for a genetic reproductive technology, because of the perceived burden for the affected offspring. With the possibly growing number of technological options, understanding high risk couples' perspectives can assist in navigating the reproductive decision-making process. Counsellors should be prepared to counsel on more and complex reproductive options.

SUBMITTER: van Dijke I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7852899 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples.

van Dijke Ivy I Lakeman Phillis P Mathijssen Inge B IB Goddijn Mariëtte M Cornel Martina C MC Henneman Lidewij L

European journal of human genetics : EJHG 20200809 1

Couples at increased risk of having offspring with a specific genetic disorder who want to avoid having an affected child have several reproductive options including prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). In the future, non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD), germline gene editing (GGE) and somatic gene editing (SGE) might become available. This study explores if, and how, availability of new genetic technologies, including NIPD, GGE, SGE, would change reproductive d ...[more]

PMID: 32773775

Similar Datasets

Project description:There is no decision-making framework in the early-adoption stage of novel surgical technologies, putting the quality of health care and resource allocation of the health care system at risk. To investigate relevant weighted criteria that decision-makers may use to make an informed decision for the early adoption of innovative surgical technologies. This multi-institutional decision analytical modeling study used a mixed-methods multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and had 2 phases. First, a panel of 12 experts validated decision criteria in the literature and identified additional criteria. Second, 33 Canadian experts prioritized the main criteria (domains) using the composition pairwise-comparison weight-elicitation method (analytical hierarchy process model) and ranked their subcriteria using the direct-ranking elicitation method (Likert scale). Data were analyzed, and response consistency was estimated using the consistency ratio. Analysis of variance was used to assess for significant differences between expert responses. The MCDA was conducted at McGill University between 2021 and 2023. Data were collected nationally by inviting experts in Canada. Criteria domain weights and subcriteria rankings. Priority vectors, which are priority scores analyzed and prioritized from expert responses, were used to rank criteria domains and subcriteria for decision-making on adopting new innovative surgical technologies. A total of 45 experts (33 male [73.3%] and 12 female [26.7%]) were invited with different levels of education (22 experts with MD or equivalent, 13 experts with master's degree, and 12 experts with PhD degree) and years of experience (4 experts with <10, 12 experts with 11-20, 18 experts with 21-30, and 11 experts with >30 years). Surgeon experts (23 individuals) were from all surgical disciplines, and nonsurgeon experts (22 individuals) were administrative officers in surgical device procurement, health technology assessment experts, and hospital directors. A total of 7 domains and 44 subcriteria were identified. The MCDA model found that clinical outcomes had the highest priority vector, at 0.429, followed by patients and public relevance (0.135). Hospital-specific criteria (priority vector, 0.099), technology-specific criteria (priority vector, 0.092), and physician-specific criteria (priority vector, 0.087) were the next most highly ranked. The lowest priority vectors were for economic criteria, at 0.083, and finally policies and procedures, at 0.075. There was consensus in the responses (consistency ratio = 0.006), and there were no statistically significant differences between expert responses. This study weighted priority criteria domains in importance and established ranked subcriteria for decision-making of early adoption of surgical technologies. Putting these criteria into a framework may help surgeons and decision-makers make informed decisions for the early adoption of new surgical technologies.

Project description:Background and objectivesBehavioral stage of change (SoC) algorithms classify patients' readiness for medical treatment decision-making. In the precontemplation stage, patients have no intention to take action within 6 months. In the contemplation stage, action is intended within 6 months. In the preparation stage, patients intend to take action within 30 days. In the action stage, the change has been made. This study examines the influence of SoC on dialysis modality decision-making.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsSoC and relevant covariates were measured, and associations with dialysis decision-making were determined. In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 patients on dialysis to elicit experiences. Qualitative interview data informed the survey design. Surveys were administered to adults with CKD (eGFR?25 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) from August, 2012 to June, 2013. Multivariable logistic regression modeled dialysis decision-making with predictors: SoC, provider connection, and dialysis knowledge score.ResultsFifty-five patients completed the survey (71% women, 39% white, and 59% black), and median annual income was $17,500. In total, 65% of patients were in the precontemplation/contemplation (thinking) and 35% of patients were in the preparation/maintenance (acting) SoC; 62% of patients had made dialysis modality decisions. Doctors explaining modality options, higher dialysis knowledge scores, and fewer lifestyle barriers were associated with acting versus thinking SoC (all P<0.02). Patients making modality decisions had doctors who explained dialysis options (76% versus 43%), were in the acting versus the thinking SoC (50% versus 10%), had higher dialysis knowledge scores (1.4 versus 0.5), and had lower eGFR (13.9 versus 16.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2); all P<0.05). In adjusted analyses, dialysis knowledge was significantly associated with decision-making (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 12.9; P=0.01), and SoC was of borderline significance (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 32.6; P=0.05). The model C statistic was 0.87.ConclusionsDialysis decision-making was associated with SoC, dialysis knowledge, and physicians discussing treatment options. Future studies determining ways to assist patients with CKD in making satisfying modality decisions are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundReproductive decision-making is difficult for BRCA-positive women. Our objective was to assess the complexities of decision-making and identify decisional supports for patients and providers when discussing reproductive options prior to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO).MethodsThis study was of qualitive design, using data collection via semi-structured interviews conducted from November 2018 to October 2020. Individuals were included if they were identified to provide care to BRCA-positive women. In total, 19 providers were approached and 15 consented to participate. Providers were recruited from three clinics in Toronto, Ontario located at academic centers: [1] A familial ovarian cancer clinic, [2] A familial breast cancer clinic and [3] A fertility clinic, all of which treat carriers of the BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic mutation. The interview guide was developed according to the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and included questions regarding reproductive options available to patients, factors that impact the decision-making process and the role of decisional support. Interviews were transcribed and transcripts were analyzed thematically using NVIVO 12.ResultsProviders identified three major decisions that reproductive-aged women face when a BRCA mutation is discovered: [1] "Do I want children?"; [2] "Do I want to take the chance of passing on this the mutation?"; and [3] "Do I want to carry a child?" Inherent decision challenges that are faced by both providers and patients included difficult decision type, competing options, scientifically uncertain outcomes, and challenging decision timing. Modifiable decisional needs included: inadequate knowledge, unrealistic expectations, unclear values and inadequate support or resources. Identified clinical gaps included counselling time constraints, lack of reliable sources of background information for patients or providers and need for time-sensitive, geographically accessible, and centralized care.ConclusionOur study identified a need for a patient information resource that can be immediately provided to patients who carry a BRCA genetic mutation. Other suggestions for clinical practice include more time during consultation appointments, adequate follow-up, value-centric counseling, access to psychosocial support, and a specialized decisional coach.

Dataset Information

How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples.

Publications

How will new genetic technologies, such as gene editing, change reproductive decision-making? Views of high-risk couples.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets