Expanded genetic carrier screening in clinical practice: a current survey of patient impressions and attitudes
Expanded genetic carrier screening (ECS) is an important part of gynecological practice and preconception planning. We evaluated the awareness and attitudes among women regarding ECS and factors that may influence decision-making in a family planning context.
A 32-question survey in an academic university practice was given to 521 women who were either currently pregnant (n = 108), undergoing gynecologic care who were considering future fertility (n = 308), and considering or receiving fertility treatment (n = 105). Data are reported descriptively.
Forty-seven percent (n = 246) of patients were aware of ECS. Though most reported feeling positive or neutral towards ECS, 51% (n = 263) reported no desire for testing. Fifty-eight percent (n = 303) felt it beneficial to know their carrier status, and 55% (n = 257) said it was their responsibility to undergo testing. Those considering future fertility were found to have a more positive attitude towards ECS (51.4%) than those considering or receiving fertility treatment (34%). For positive carriers of a genetic disorder, 228 (49%) of patients would proceed with having their partner screened, 58 (13%) would undergo prenatal screening only and 12 (2.6%) would continue with vitro fertilization (IVF). Related to cost for ECS, 53.5% (n = 191) would be willing to pay at least $50–100 for testing, while 29% (n = 146) would not pay anything out of pocket.
Despite patients’ beliefs that it would be beneficial and their responsibility to undergo carrier status testing, the majority reported no desire for ECS and many were unwilling to pay out of pocket. Further education is necessary to reconcile the gap between technology and patient decision-making.
KeywordsCarrier screening Expanded carrier screening Genetic screening Patient perceptions Reproductive genetics
Compliance with ethical standards
This prospective qualitative survey study was reviewed and approved by the Wright State Physicians, Boonshoft School of Medicine, Institutional Review Board (Dayton, Ohio) (SC-5876), and the study was in compliance with privacy act guidelines. From July 2015 to August 2016 subjects were recruited to participate in this prospective clinical study.
Conflict of interest
Steven R. Lindheim, MD, MMM received a grant from Progenity®, San Diego, CA. Study funded by Progenity®, unrestricted research grant. There was no involvement by Progenity in writing this manuscript. The remaining authors report no conflict of interest.
The statements made in this article are not a reflection of the US government or military positions or opinions.
- 7.Genetics Co. Committee opinion no. 691: carrier screening for genetic conditions. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(3):e41–55.Google Scholar
- 8.Bajaj K, Gross S. Carrier screening: past, present, and future. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2014;3:1033–42.Google Scholar
- 10.Kingsmore S. Comprehensive carrier screening and molecular diagnostic testing for recessive childhood diseases. PLoS Curr. 2012:e4f9877ab8ffa9.Google Scholar
- 15.Ekstrand Ragnar M, Tydén T, Kihlbom U, Larsson M. Swedish parents’ interest in preconception genetic carrier screening. Ups J Med Sci. 2016:1–6.Google Scholar
- 17.Holtkamp KCA, Mathijssen IB, Lakeman P, van Maarle MC, Dondorp WJ, Henneman L, et al. Factors for successful implementation of population-based expanded carrier screening: learning from existing initiatives. Eur J Pub Health. 2017;27(2):372–7.Google Scholar
- 31.van der Pal SM, van Kesteren NM, van Wouwe JP, van Dommelen P, Detmar SB. The attitudes and intention to participate in hemoglobinopathy carrier screening in the Netherlands among individuals from Turkish, Moroccan, and Surinamese descent. J Environ Public Health. 2013;2013:374831. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/374831.PubMedGoogle Scholar