A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Providers’ Perspectives on the Implications of Genome-Wide Testing in Pediatric Clinical Practice
- 819 Downloads
The utilization of genome-wide chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in pediatric clinical practice provides an opportunity to consider how genetic diagnostics is evolving, and to prepare for the clinical integration of genome-wide sequencing technologies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 healthcare providers (7 genetic counselors, 4 medical geneticists, and 4 non-genetics providers) to investigate the impact of CMA on clinical practice, and implications for providers, patients and families. Interviews were analyzed qualitatively using content analysis. Most providers reported that genomic testing enhanced their professional experience and was beneficial to patients, primarily due to the improved diagnostic rate compared with earlier chromosomal studies. Other effects on practice included moving towards genotype-first diagnosis and broadening indications for chromosomal testing. Opinions varied concerning informed consent and disclosure of results. The duty to disclose incidental findings (IFs) was noted; however concerns were raised about potential psychosocial harms of disclosing pre-symptomatic findings. Tensions were revealed between the need for comprehensive informed consent for all families and the challenges of communicating time-consuming and potentially anxiety-provoking information regarding uncertain and incidental findings that may be relevant only in rare cases. Genetic counselors can play an important role in liaising with families, health professionals and testing laboratories, providing education and guidance to non-genetics providers, and enabling families to receive adequate pre-and post-test information and follow-up care.
KeywordsGenomics Uncertainty Incidental findings Clinical pediatrics Qualitative
This study was funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supplement PA-04-126 to Penn CIGHT P50 HG004487. The opinions in this report do not reflect the views of the NIH.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest with respect to the manuscript.
- Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative analysis with Nvivo. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
- Bernard, H. R. (2002). Qualitative data analysis I: Text analysis. Research Methods in Anthropology (Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches) (Vol. 3rd, pp. 440–488). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
- Bernard, H. R. (2012). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches Sage Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J., Hoon, A., & Wilms Floet, A. M. (2013). Providing family guidance in rapidly shifting sand: informed consent for genetic testing. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 56(1), 766–768.Google Scholar
- Kearney, H. M., Thorland, E. C., Brown, K. K., Quintero-Rivera, F., & South, S. T. (2011). American college of medical genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genetics in Medicine, 13(7), 680–685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kemper, A. R., Trotter, T. L., Lloyd-Puryear, M. A., Kyler, P., Feero, W. G., & Howell, R. R. (2010). A blueprint for maternal and child health primary care physician education in medical genetics and genomic medicine: recommendations of the United States secretary for health and human services advisory committee on heritable disorders in newborns and children. Genetics in Medicine, 12(2), 77–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Miller, D. T., Adam, M. P., Aradhya, S., Biesecker, L. G., Brothman, A. R., Carter, N. P., et al. (2010). Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 86(5), 749–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Portnoy, D. B., Han, P. K., Ferrer, R. A., Klein, W. M., & Clauser, S. B. (2011). Physicians’ attitudes about communicating and managing scientific uncertainty differ by perceived ambiguity aversion of their patients. Health Expectations Google Scholar
- Reiff, M., Ross, K., Mulchandani, S., Propert, K. J., Pyeritz, R. E., Spinner, N. B., & Bernhardt, B. A. (2013). Physicians’ perspectives on the uncertainties and implications of chromosomal microarray testing of children and families. Clinical Genetics, 83(1), 23–30.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Trinidad, S. B., Fryer-Edwards, K., Crest, A., Kyler, P., Lloyd-Puryear, M. A., & Burke, W. (2008). Educational needs in genetic medicine: primary care perspectives. Public Health Genomics, 11(3), 160–165.Google Scholar
- Wain, K. E., Riggs, E., Hanson, K., Savage, M., Riethmaier, D., Muirhead, A., et al. (2012). The laboratory-clinician team: A professional call to action to improve communication and collaboration for optimal patient care in chromosomal microarray testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 5, 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar