Female and male perspectives on male partner roles in expanded carrier screening.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
To explore facilitators and barriers for male partner follow through carrier screening (CS) after their female partners were identified as carriers, from both male and female perspectives.Methods
Participants were either females identified as a carrier through CS (512 participants) or males who had CS (125 participants). Participants were recruited via e-mails with survey links. The survey explored factors surrounding decisions to pursue CS or not.Results
Males who attended the females' CS appointment were more likely to have CS (OR: 2.07). More male partners of females identified as carriers of severe or profound conditions pursued CS (82.0%) than male partners of females who were carriers for moderate conditions (50.0%). Logistic factors were more impactful for males who pursued CS. Females whose male partners did not test endorsed personal belief factors as most impactful, reporting the perceived low risk (75.0%) and his low concern for the specific condition (65.5%) were the top reasons their partners did not test.Conclusion
Many factors impact how male partners appraise reproductive risk from CS and make decisions regarding their own screening. Advising that male partners attend CS appointments may increase the likelihood of follow through CS. Thorough and repeated risk counseling is indicated.
SUBMITTER: Jurgensmeyer S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7884522 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This article examines the association between neighborhood characteristics at the census tract-level, couples' perceived neighborhood social cohesion and informal social control, and male-to-female (MFPV) and female-to-male (FMPV) partner violence in the United States. Data come from a second wave of interviews (2000) with a national sample of couples 18 years of age and older who were first interviewed in 1995. The path analysis shows that poverty is associated with perceived social cohesion and perceived social control as hypothesized. However, there is no significant mediation effect for social control or social cohesion on any type of violence. In the path analysis, Black ethnicity is associated with social cohesion, which is associated with MFPV. Intimate partner violence (IPV), as a form of domestic violence, may not be as concentrated in high-poverty neighborhoods as criminal violence. IPV may be more determined by personal and dyadic characteristics than criminal violence.
| S-EPMC2948065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe recent growth in pan-ethnic expanded carrier screening (ECS) has raised questions about how such panels might be designed and evaluated systematically. Design principles for ECS panels might improve clinical detection of at-risk couples and facilitate objective discussions of panel choice.MethodsGuided by medical-society statements, we propose a method for the design of ECS panels that aims to maximize the aggregate and per-disease sensitivity and specificity across a range of Mendelian disorders considered serious by a systematic classification scheme. We evaluated this method retrospectively using results from 474,644 de-identified carrier screens. We then constructed several idealized panels to highlight strengths and limitations of different ECS methodologies.ResultsBased on modeled fetal risks for "severe" and "profound" diseases, a commercially available ECS panel (Counsyl) is expected to detect 183 affected conceptuses per 100,000 US births. A screen's sensitivity is greatly impacted by two factors: (i) the methodology used (e.g., full-exon sequencing finds more affected conceptuses than targeted genotyping) and (ii) the detection rate of the screen for diseases with high prevalence and complex molecular genetics (e.g., fragile X syndrome).ConclusionThe described approaches enable principled, quantitative evaluation of which diseases and methodologies are appropriate for pan-ethnic expanded carrier screening.
| S-EPMC5763154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat are the sperm and egg donor rejection rates after expanded carrier screening (ECS)?Summary answerUsing an ECS panel looking at 46/47 genes, 17.6% of donors were rejected.What is known alreadyThe use of ECS is becoming commonplace in assisted reproductive technology, including testing of egg and sperm donors. Most national guidelines recommend rejection of donors if they are carriers of a genetic disease. If the use of ECS increases, there will be a decline in the number of donors available.Study design, size, durationA review of the current preconception ECS panels available to donors was carried out through an online search. The genetic testing results of donors from Cryos International were analysed to determine how many were rejected on the basis of the ECS.Participants/materials, setting, methodsData on gamete donors and their carrier status was provided by Cryos International, who screen donors using their own bespoke ECS panel. The ECS panels identified through the review were compared to the Cryos International panel and data.Main results and the role of chanceA total of 16 companies and 42 associated ECS panels were reviewed. There were a total of 2673 unique disorders covered by the panels examined, with a mean of 329 disorders screened. None of these disorders were common to all panels. Cryos International screen 46 disorders in males and 47 in females. From 883 candidate donors, 17.6% (155/883) were rejected based on their ECS result. Carriers of alpha-thalassaemia represented the largest proportion of those rejected (19.4%, 30/155), then spinal muscular atrophy (15.5%, 24/155) and cystic fibrosis (14.8%, 23/155).Limitations, reasons for cautionPanel information was found on company websites and may not have been accurate.Wider implications of the findingsThis study highlights the need for consistent EU regulations and guidelines that allow genetic matching of gamete donors to their recipients, preventing the need to reject donors who are known carriers. A larger ECS panel would be most beneficial; however, this would not be viable without matching of donors and recipients.Study funding/competing interest(s)No specific funding was obtained. J.C.H. is the founder of Global Women Connected, a platform to discuss women's health issues and the Embryology and PGD Academy, who deliver education in clinical embryology. She has been paid to give a lecture by Cryos in 2019. A-B.S. is an employee of Cryos International.Trial registration numberN/A.
| S-EPMC8129592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveBetween 2016 and 2017, a population-based preconception expanded carrier screening (PECS) test was developed in the Netherlands during a pilot study. It was subsequently made possible in mid-2018 for couples to ask to have such a PECS test from specially trained general practitioners (GPs). Research has described GPs as crucial in offering PECS tests, but little is known about the GPs' views on PECS and their experiences of providing this test. This article presents a thematic analysis of the PECS practice from the perspective of GPs and a bioethical discussion of the empirical results.DesignEmpirical bioethics. A thematic analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews was conducted, and is combined with an ethical/philosophical discussion.SettingThe Netherlands.Participants7 Dutch GPs in the Netherlands, interviewed in 2019-2020.ResultsTwo themes were identified in the thematic analysis: 'Choice and its complexity' and 'PECS as prompting existential concerns'. The empirical bioethics discussion showed that the first theme highlights that several areas coshape the complexity of choice on PECS, and the need for shared relational autonomous decision-making on these areas within the couple. The second theme highlights that it is not possible to analyse the existential issues raised by PECS solely on the level of the couple or family. A societal level must be included, since these levels affect each other. We refer to this as 'entangled existential genetics'.ConclusionThe empirical bioethical analysis leads us to present two practical implications. These are: (1) training of GPs who are to offer PECS should cover shared relational autonomous decision-making within the couple and (2) more attention should be given to existential issues evoked by genetic considerations, also during the education of GPs and in bioethical discussions around PECS.
| S-EPMC8663082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExpanded carrier screening can provide risk information for numerous conditions. Understanding how individuals undergoing preconception expanded carrier screening value this information is important. The NextGen study evaluated the use of genome sequencing for expanded carrier screening and reporting secondary findings, and we measured participants' willingness to pay for this approach to understand how it is valued by women and couples planning a pregnancy.MethodsWe assessed 277 participants' willingness to pay for genome sequencing reporting carrier results for 728 gene/condition pairs and results for 121 secondary findings. We explored the association between attitudes and demographic factors and willingness to pay for expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing and conducted interviews with 58 of these participants to probe the reasoning behind their preferences.ResultsMost participants were willing to pay for expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing. Willingness to pay was associated with income level and religiosity, but not risk status for a condition in the carrier panel. Participants willing to pay nothing or a small amount cited issues around financial resources, whereas those willing to pay higher amounts were motivated by "peace of mind" from carrier results.ConclusionWomen and couples planning a pregnancy value genome sequencing. The potentially high out-of-pocket cost of this service could result in healthcare disparities, since maximum amounts that participants were willing to pay were higher than a typical copay and related to income.
| S-EPMC6051630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Carrier screening allows individuals to learn their chance of passing on an autosomal or X-linked condition to their offspring. Initially introduced as single-disease, ancestry-based screening, technological advances now allow for the possibility of multi-disease, pan-ethnic carrier screening, which we refer to as "expanded carrier screening." There are numerous potential benefits to expanded carrier screening, including maximizing the opportunity for couples to make autonomous reproductive decisions, and efficiency and marginal additional costs of including more conditions if the test is already being offered. While numerous laboratories currently offer expanded carrier screening services, it is not yet commonly used in clinical practice, and there is a lack of consensus among experts about the service, including whether this should be offered to individuals and couples, whether this should be offered preconception or prenatally, and what conditions to include in screening programs. Challenges for expanded carrier screening programs include a lack of demand from the public, low prioritization by health systems, the potential for pressure to undergo screening, the possibility of disability-based discrimination, needed adaptations to pre- and post-test counseling, technical limitations, and the evolving technological and socio-political landscape.
| S-EPMC6752283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Preconception carrier screening offers couples the possibility to receive information about the risk of having a child with a recessive disorder. Since 2016, an expanded carrier screening (ECS) test for 50 severe autosomal recessive disorders has been available at Amsterdam Medical Center, a Dutch university hospital. This mixed-methods study evaluated the experiences of couples that participated in the carrier screening offer, including high-risk participants, as well as participants with a general population risk. All participants received genetic counselling, and pre- (n = 132) and post-test (n = 86) questionnaires and semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were administered. The most important reason to have ECS was to spare a future child a life with a severe disorder (47%). The majority of survey respondents made an informed decision (86%), as assessed by the Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. Among the 86 respondents, 27 individual carriers and no new carrier couples were identified. Turn-around time of the test results was considered too long and costs were perceived as too high. Overall, mean levels of anxiety were not clinically elevated. High-risk respondents (n = 89) and pregnant respondents (n = 13) experienced higher levels of anxiety before testing, which decreased after receiving the test result. Although not clinically significant, distress was on average higher for carriers compared to non-carriers (p < 0.0001). All respondents would opt for the test again, and 80.2% would recommend it to others. The results suggest that ECS should ideally be offered before pregnancy, to minimise anxiety. This study could inform current and future implementation initiatives of preconception ECS.
| S-EPMC8384865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Expanded carrier screening (ECS) aims to inform couples' reproductive choice, preferably before conception. As part of an implementation study in which trained general practitioners (GPs) offered a population-based ECS couple-test, we evaluated the feasibility of the test-offer and degree of participant informed choice (IC). Trained GPs from nine practices in the northern Netherlands invited 4295 female patients aged 18-40 to take part in couple-based ECS. Inclusion criteria were having a male partner, planning for children and not being pregnant. We evaluated the feasibility of the organizational aspects, GP competence and the content of the pre-test counselling. Participant satisfaction, evaluation of pre-test counselling and degree of IC were measured using a longitudinal survey. We explored GP experiences and their views on future implementation through semi-structured interviews. 130 consultations took place. All participating GPs were assessed by genetic professionals to be competent to conduct pre-test counselling. Most (63/108 (58%)) consultations took place within the planned 20 min (median 20, IQR 18-28). GPs considered couples' prior knowledge level an important determinant of consultation length. 91% of patients were (very) satisfied with the GP counselling. After pre-test counselling, 231/237(97%) participants had sufficient knowledge and 206/231(88%) had a positive attitude and proceeded with testing. Our pilot demonstrates that offering couple-based ECS through trained and motivated GPs is feasible. Future large-scale implementation requires a well-informed general public and a discussion about appropriate reimbursement for GPs and health care coverage for couples. Providing (more) test information pre-appointment may help reduce average consultation time.
| S-EPMC6462008 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeExpanded carrier screening (ECS) informs couples of their risk of having offspring affected by certain genetic conditions. Limited data exists assessing the actions and reproductive outcomes of at-risk couples (ARCs). We describe the impact of ECS on planned and actual pregnancy management in the largest sample of ARCs studied to date.MethodsCouples who elected ECS and were found to be at high risk of having a pregnancy affected by at least one of 176 genetic conditions were invited to complete a survey about their actions and pregnancy management.ResultsThree hundred ninety-one ARCs completed the survey. Among those screened before becoming pregnant, 77% planned or pursued actions to avoid having affected offspring. Among those screened during pregnancy, 37% elected prenatal diagnostic testing (PNDx) for that pregnancy. In subsequent pregnancies that occurred in both the preconception and prenatal screening groups, PNDx was pursued in 29%. The decision to decline PNDx was most frequently based on the fear of procedure-related miscarriage, as well as the belief that termination would not be pursued in the event of a positive diagnosis.ConclusionECS results impacted couples' reproductive decision-making and led to altered pregnancy management that effectively eliminates the risk of having affected offspring.
| S-EPMC6752268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive monogenic diseases requires prior knowledge of genomic variation, including DNA variants that cause disease. The composition of pathogenic variants differs greatly among human populations, but historically, research about monogenic diseases has focused mainly on people with European ancestry. By comparison, less is known about pathogenic DNA variants in people from other parts of the world. Consequently, inclusion of currently underrepresented Indigenous and other minority population groups in genomic research is essential to enable equitable outcomes in ECS and other areas of genomic medicine. Here, we discuss this issue in relation to the implementation of ECS in Australia, which is currently being evaluated as part of the national Government's Genomics Health Futures Mission. We argue that significant effort is required to build an evidence base and genomic reference data so that ECS can bring significant clinical benefit for many Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Australians. These efforts are essential steps to achieving the Australian Government's objectives and its commitment "to leveraging the benefits of genomics in the health system for all Australians." They require culturally safe, community-led research and community involvement embedded within national health and medical genomics programs to ensure that new knowledge is integrated into medicine and health services in ways that address the specific and articulated cultural and health needs of Indigenous people. Until this occurs, people who do not have European ancestry are at risk of being, in relative terms, further disadvantaged.
| S-EPMC7413856 | biostudies-literature