Top

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Published in:

01-09-2018 | Genetics

Expanded carrier screening: a current survey of physician utilization and attitudes

Authors: Allison Briggs, Parvaneh K. Nouri, Michael Galloway, Kathleen O’Leary, Nigel Pereira, Steven R. Lindheim

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 9/2018

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.

Available only for authorised users

Simpson JL. Choosing the best prenatal screening protocol. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(19):2068–70.CrossRefPubMed

Kaback MM. Population-based genetic screening for reproductive counseling: the Tay-Sachs disease model. Eur J Pediatr;159 Suppl 3:S192–5.

Cousens NE, Gaff CL, Metcalfe SA, Delatycki MB. Carrier screening for beta-thalassaemia: a review of international practice. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(10):1077–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bajaj K, Gross SJ. Carrier screening: past, present, and future. J Clin Med. 2014;3(3):1033–42.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Committee Opinion No. 691. Summary: carrier screening for genetic conditions. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(3):597–9.CrossRef

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(65):65ra4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kingsmore S. Comprehensive carrier screening and molecular diagnostic testing for recessive childhood diseases. PLoS Curr. 2012;02:e4f9877ab8ffa9.

Tanner AK, Valencia CA, Rhodenizer D, Espirages M, Da Silva C, Borsuk L, et al. Development and performance of a comprehensive targeted sequencing assay for pan-ethnic screening of carrier status. J Mol Diagn. 2014;16(3):350–60.CrossRefPubMed

Janssens S, Chokoshvili D, Vears D, De Paepe A, Borry P. Attitudes of European geneticists regarding expanded carrier screening. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2017;46(1):63–71.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lau TK. Obstetricians should get ready for expanded carrier screening. BJOG. 2016;123(Suppl 3):36–8.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Wilkins-Haug L, Erickson K, Hill L, Power M, Holzman GB, Schulkin J. Obstetrician-gynecologists’ opinions and attitudes on the role of genetics in women's health. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000;9(8):873–9.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Edwards JG, Feldman G, Goldberg J, Gregg AR, Norton ME, Rose NC, et al. Expanded carrier screening in reproductive medicine-points to consider: a joint statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Society of Genetic Counselors, Perinatal Quality Foundation, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(3):653–62.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Morgan MA, Driscoll DA, Mennuti MT, Schulkin J. Practice patterns of obstetrician-gynecologists regarding preconception and prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Genet Med. 2004;6(5):450–5.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Janssens S, De Paepe A, Borry P. Attitudes of health care professionals toward carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. A review of the literature. J Community Genet. 2014;5(1):13–29.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Benn P, Chapman AR, Erickson K, Defrancesco MS, Wilkins-Haug L, Egan JF, et al. Obstetricians and gynecologists’ practice and opinions of expanded carrier testing and noninvasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2014;34(2):145–52.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Ready K, Haque IS, Srinivasan BS, Marshall JR. Knowledge and attitudes regarding expanded genetic carrier screening among women’s healthcare providers. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(2):407–13.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Brooks DJ. Differences in patient screening mammography rates associated with internist gender and level of training and change following the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2016;14(6):749–53.CrossRef

18.

Delgado A, Saletti-Cuesta L, Lopez-Fernandez LA, Gil-Garrido N, Luna Del Castillo Jde D. Gender inequalities in COPD decision-making in primary care. Respir Med. 2016;114:91–6.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Tsugawa Y, Jena AB, Figueroa JF, Orav EJ, Blumenthal DM, Jha AK. Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates for Medicare patients treated by male vs female physicians. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(2):206–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

De Wert GM, Dondorp WJ, Knoppers BM. Preconception care and genetic risk: ethical issues. J Community Genet. 2012;3(3):221–8.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Raz AE, Vizner Y. Carrier matching and collective socialization in community genetics: Dor Yeshorim and the reinforcement of stigma. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(9):1361–9.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Marshall KP. Has technology introduced new ethical problems? J Bus Ethics. 1999;19(1):81–90.CrossRef

Title: Expanded carrier screening: a current survey of physician utilization and attitudes
Authors: Allison Briggs
Parvaneh K. Nouri
Michael Galloway
Kathleen O’Leary
Nigel Pereira
Steven R. Lindheim
Publication date: 01-09-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 9/2018
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1272-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Expanded carrier screening: a current survey of physician utilization and attitudes

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2018

Euploid embryos selected by an automated time-lapse system have superior SET outcomes than selected solely by conventional morphology assessment

Associations of semen quality with non-essential heavy metals in blood and seminal fluid: data from the Environment and Male Infertility (EMI) study in Lebanon

Live birth and multiple birth rates in US in vitro fertilization treatment using donor oocytes: a comparison of single-embryo transfer and double-embryo transfer

Euploidy in relation to blastocyst sex and morphology

Factors associated with short interpregnancy interval among women treated with in vitro fertilization

Magnetic-activated cell sorting of non-apoptotic spermatozoa improves the quality of embryos according to female age: a prospective sibling oocyte study