Top

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Published in:

01-05-2015 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Public perspectives on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Authors: William D. Winkelman, Stacey A. Missmer, Dale Myers, Elizabeth S. Ginsburg

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 5/2015

Abstract

Purpose

To study the perspectives of the United States population towards the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in various clinical scenarios.

Methods

Online cross-sectional population based questionnaire of a nationally representative sample according to age, gender, race/ethnicity, income, education and religion.

Results

A total of 1006 completed the questionnaire with an overall response rate of 94 %. A majority supported PGD for diseases fatal early in life or those causing lifelong disability (72.9 and 66.7 %, respectively); only 48.0 % supported PGD for diseases that manifest late in life. Respondents were more supportive of PGD for genetic diseases if they were aware of PGD prior to the survey (OR = 1.64; CI = 1.13–2.39). However, a small proportion were in favor of genetically-based trait selection: 21.1 % supported PGD for sex selection, 14.6 % for physical traits and 18.9 % for personality traits. Compared to women, men were nearly two- to three-fold more supportive of PGD for sex selection (OR = 1.65; CI = 1.20–2.78), physical traits (OR = 2.38; CI = 1.60–3.48) and personality traits (OR = 2.31; CI = 1.64–3.26). Compared to Caucasians, Asians (OR = 3.87; CI = 1.71–8.78) and African Americans (OR = 1.61; CI = 1.04–2.74) were more supportive of PGD for sex selection.

Conclusions

In a nationally representative sample, a majority supported PGD to identify early onset diseases. We noted significant variation in opinions by sex, race, and education. There was more support among those with prior knowledge of PGD suggesting that education about PGD may foster favorable opinions. This study identifies public knowledge and attitudes that may be used to shape future research hypotheses and clinical policies.

Available only for authorised users

Baruch S, Kaufman D, Hudson KL. Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(5):1053–1058. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17628552.

Basille C, Frydman R, El Aly A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: state of the art. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;145(1):9–13. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19411132. Accessed 14 July 2014.

Soini S, Ibarreta D, Anastasiadou V, et al. The interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues. Eur J Hum Genet. 2006;14(5):588–645. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16636693. Accessed 14 July 2014.

Hens K, Dondorp W, Handyside AH, et al. Dynamics and ethics of comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing: a review of the challenges. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(4):366–75. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23466750. Accessed 14 July 2014.

Milner KK, Collins EE, Connors GR, Petty EM. Attitudes of young adults to prenatal screening and genetic correction for human attributes and psychiatric conditions. Am J Med Genet. 1998;76(2):111–9. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9511972.

Hathaway F, Burns E, Ostrer H. Consumers’ desire towards current and prospective reproductive genetic testing. J Genet Couns. 2009;18(2):137–146. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19160030.

Pergament E. Preimplantation diagnosis: a patient perspective. Prenat Diagn. 1991;11(8):493–500. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1766924.

Miedzybrodzka Z, Templeton A, Dean J, Haites N, Mollison J, Smith N. Preimplantation diagnosis or chorionic villus biopsy? Women’s attitudes and preferences. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(12):2192–2196. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8150923.

Krones T, Schluter E, Manolopoulos K, et al. Public, expert and patients’ opinions on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Germany. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10(1):116–123. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15705307.

10.

Fortuny D, Balmana J, Grana B, et al. Opinion about reproductive decision making among individuals undergoing BRCA1/2 genetic testing in a multicentre Spanish cohort. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(4):1000–1006. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19112076.

11.

Michie S, Drake H, Marteau T, Bobrow M. A comparison of public and professionals’ attitudes towards genetic developments. Public Underst Sci. 1995;4(3):243–53.CrossRef

12.

Campbell E, Ross LF. Attitudes of healthcare professionals and parents regarding genetic testing for violent traits in childhood. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(6):580–6. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1733973&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 18 July 2014.

13.

Whittaker AM. Reproduction opportunists in the new global sex trade: PGD and non-medical sex selection. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(5):609–617. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21975224.

14.

Hudson K, Scott J. Public awareness and attitudes about genetic technology. Washington DC; 2002.

15.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 American Community Survey. Available at: http://www.census.gov/. Accessed 6 May 2014.

16.

Hui PW, Lam YH, Chen M, et al. Attitude of at-risk subjects towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis of alpha- and beta-thalassaemias in Hong Kong. Prenat Diagn. 2002;22(6):508–11. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12116317.

17.

Chamayou S, Guglielmino a, Giambona a, et al. Attitude of potential users in Sicily towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis for beta-thalassaemia and aneuploidies. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(7):1936–44. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9740453.

18.

Balmaña J, Díez O, Rubio IT, Cardoso F. BRCA in breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2011;22 Suppl 6(Supplement 6):vi31–4. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21908500. Accessed 7 August 2014.

19.

Meister U, Finck C, Stöbel-Richter Y, Schmutzer G, Brähler E. Knowledge and attitudes towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):231–8. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15471929. Accessed 16 July 2014.

20.

Lammens C, Bleiker E, Aaronson N, et al. Attitude towards pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for hereditary cancer. Fam Cancer. 2009;8(4):457–64. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2771132&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 16 July 2014.

21.

Aro AR, Hakonen A, Hietala M, et al. Acceptance of genetic testing in a general population: age, education and gender differences. Patient Educ Couns. 1997;32(1–2):41–9. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9355571.

22.

Aula P, Hietala M, Miemela P. Miten suomalaiset suhtautuvat geenitesteihin. Duodecim. 1996;32(112):95–102.

23.

Percentage of Individuals using the Internet 2000–2012. Int Telecommun Union. 2013. Available at: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/statistics/2013/Individuals_Internet_2000-2012.xls.

24.

Language Use in the United States. US Census Bur. 2007. Available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/ACS-12.pdf.

Title: Public perspectives on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis
Authors: William D. Winkelman
Stacey A. Missmer
Dale Myers
Elizabeth S. Ginsburg
Publication date: 01-05-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 5/2015
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0456-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Public perspectives on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2015

Erratum to: The safety of long-term cryopreservation on slow-frozen early cleavage human embryos

Live birth rates using conventional in vitro fertilization compared to intracytoplasmic sperm injection in Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved

Scrotal heat stress causes sperm chromatin damage and cysteinyl aspartate-spicific proteinases 3 changes in fertile men

Can apoptosis and necrosis coexist in ejaculated human spermatozoa during in vitro semen bacterial infection?

Genetic association between FXIII and β-fibrinogen genes and women with recurrent spontaneous abortion: a meta- analysis

A quantitative approach to blastocyst quality evaluation: morphometric analysis and related IVF outcomes