Journal of Genetic Counseling最新文献

Increasing numbers of fertility patients use preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions (PGT-M) during in vitro fertilization (IVF). While PGT-M is primarily used to avoid implanting embryos with a monogenic condition, patients can request to transfer an embryo with the monogenic condition (positive embryo transfer), especially in cases where an IVF cycle results in no unaffected embryos. Transferring embryos with known disease-causing variants raises ethical concerns. There is limited understanding about how stakeholders in the assisted reproductive technology (ART) field approach these issues. In this study, genetic counselors were sent a survey to gather insight into their views about transferring embryos with different monogenic conditions. N = 99 genetic counselors completed the survey, 22 of whom had experience with patients requesting or deciding to transfer an embryo with a monogenic condition (positive embryo transfer experience). Most participants, including those with positive embryo transfer experience, were supportive of positive embryo transfer, regardless of the genetic condition. While participating genetic counselors were largely supportive of all patient decisions, they reported increased moral uneasiness around transferring embryos with life-limiting monogenic conditions, such as Huntington's disease. Further investigation into the experiences of genetic counselors who have experienced positive embryo transfer requests in practice can help delineate the ethical questions that ART providers face in this context and clarify how genetic counselors can contribute to establishing guidelines in the ART field.

Non-invasive prenatal screening provides a risk assessment for aneuploidies by utilizing cell-free DNA (cfDNA). It is recommended that cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA screening) be offered to all pregnant people regardless of a priori risk for aneuploidy. In the absence of an increased risk, alternative motives for electing cfDNA screening and different levels of informed decision making may arise. Therefore, our study aimed to characterize low-risk patients' motivations for cfDNA screening election, determine how often informed decisions are being made, and compare motivations between informed and uninformed decision makers. A survey that included a modified, validated measure of informed choice (MMIC) and questions to assess patients' motivations for cfDNA screening was offered at four MFM clinics following genetic counseling. It was found that 44% of participants (n = 100) made an uninformed decision about testing. Participants with private insurers were 4.25 times more likely to make an informed decision (95% CI = 1.10–16.37). Informed decision makers scored avoiding invasive procedures higher (p = 0.007) and ranked doing what family/friends desire lower (p = 0.005) than uninformed decision makers. While most participants scored receiving information about genetic conditions highest, 12% of participants reported fetal sex disclosure as a priority. However, this was not found to be associated with uninformed decision making. This study ultimately established that following genetic counseling, a low-risk population shared motivations with high-risk populations which highlights the importance of complete pre-test counseling for all. Future research should investigate the effect of modifying variables, such as socioeconomic status, on the performance of informed choice measures and critically evaluate the parameters that determine informed choice.

Empathy is a significant element in genetic counseling for building relationships with the clients and addressing their issues. However, there are few reports on the experiences of the clients about their perceived empathy in genetic counseling. Cancer genetic counseling needs have been rapidly evolving with the expansion of clinical comprehensive genomic profiling and genetic diagnosis approaches for hereditary cancers. Therefore, this study aimed to reveal empathy perceptions of the clients during cancer genetic counseling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and a grounded theory approach was used for data analysis. A total of 13 participants were recruited from organizations for patients with cancer, among whom 11 were patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and two were relatives of patients with HBOC. Data analysis was organized into five categories related to experiences with empathy: (i) prior context to perceive empathy (ii) understanding and consideration, (iii) bedside manner, and (iv) impacted area of perceived empathy; and (v) no empathy. This study highlights the fact that empathy experiences of the clients differ depending on the situation and state of mind. Taken together, this study provides new insights on how to deliver empathic care.

Since the 1990s, genetic clinics have been established in South Korea, enabling the provision of clinical genetics services. However, genetic counseling services are not widely used in the medical system. In contrast, recently, the demand for genetic counseling has increased due to the rapid development of genomic medicine. Therefore, it is important for medical geneticists and genetic counselors to collaboratively provide genetic counseling services. This study aimed to evaluate the perception and satisfaction of patients with rare genetic diseases and their families regarding genetic counseling services provided by a genetics team at the medical genetics center of a tertiary general hospital for rare genetic diseases. From April to November 2021, a survey was conducted with 203 individuals, including 111 and 92 individuals in the patient and family groups, respectively. Overall, 164 individuals (80.8%) responded that they were aware of genetic counseling services, and 135 individuals (66.5%) responded that they were aware of the role of genetic counselors. Patients and their families wanted to receive information about the following from genetic counseling: clinical manifestation and prognosis of the diagnosed disease (78.8%), treatment and management of the disease (60.6%), risk of recurrence within the family (55.7%), treatment options and alternatives for family and prenatal testing, and various support services. The score of satisfaction with genetic counseling services provided by the genetics team was 8.19 ± 1.68 out of 10. Patients with rare genetic diseases and their families were satisfied with genetic counseling services regarding their diseases, test results, and treatment options. Moreover, the patients could receive psychosocial support and referrals to other medical service providers and support services. As a genetic team approach, collaboration between medical geneticists and certified genetic counselors would be useful in providing information and in diagnosing, treating, and managing patients.

Familial communication of results and cascade genetic testing (CGT) can extend the benefits of genetic screening beyond the patient to their at-risk relatives. While an increasing number of health systems are offering genetic screening as an elective clinical service, data are limited about how often results are shared and how often results lead to CGT. From 2018 to 2022, the Sanford Health system offered the Sanford Chip, an elective genomic test that included screening for medically actionable predispositions for disease recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for secondary findings disclosure, to its adult primary care patients. We analyzed patient-reported data about familial sharing of results and CGT among patients who received Sanford Chip results at least 1 year previously. Among the patients identified with medically actionable predispositions, 94.6% (53/56) reported disclosing their result to at least one family member, compared with 46.7% (423/906) of patients with uninformative findings (p < 0.001). Of the patients with actionable predispositions, 52.2% (12/23) with a monogenic disease risk and 12.1% (4/33) with a carrier status reported that their relatives underwent CGT. Results suggest that while the identification of monogenic risk during elective genomic testing motivates CGT in many at-risk relatives, there remain untested at-risk relatives who may benefit from future CGT. Findings identify an area that may benefit from increased genetic counseling and the development of tools and resources to encourage CGT for family members.

Familial communication of results and cascade genetic testing (CGT) can extend the benefits of genetic screening beyond the patient to their at-risk relatives. While an increasing number of health systems are offering genetic screening as an elective clinical service, data are limited about how often results are shared and how often results lead to CGT. From 2018 to 2022, the Sanford Health system offered the Sanford Chip, an elective genomic test that included screening for medically actionable predispositions for disease recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for secondary findings disclosure, to its adult primary care patients. We analyzed patient-reported data about familial sharing of results and CGT among patients who received Sanford Chip results at least 1 year previously. Among the patients identified with medically actionable predispositions, 94.6% (53/56) reported disclosing their result to at least one family member, compared with 46.7% (423/906) of patients with uninformative findings (p < 0.001). Of the patients with actionable predispositions, 52.2% (12/23) with a monogenic disease risk and 12.1% (4/33) with a carrier status reported that their relatives underwent CGT. Results suggest that while the identification of monogenic risk during elective genomic testing motivates CGT in many at-risk relatives, there remain untested at-risk relatives who may benefit from future CGT. Findings identify an area that may benefit from increased genetic counseling and the development of tools and resources to encourage CGT for family members.

While digital tools, such as the Internet, smartphones, and social media, are an important part of modern society, little is known about the specific role they play in the healthcare management of individuals and caregivers affected by rare disease. Collectively, rare diseases directly affect up to 10% of the global population, suggesting that a significant number of individuals might benefit from the use of digital tools. The purpose of this qualitative interview-based study was to explore: (a) the ways in which digital tools help the rare disease community; (b) the healthcare gaps not addressed by current digital tools; and (c) recommended digital tool features. Individuals and caregivers affected by rare disease who were comfortable using a smartphone and at least 18 years old were eligible to participate. We recruited from rare disease organizations using purposive sampling in order to achieve a diverse and information rich sample. Interviews took place over Zoom and reflexive thematic analysis was utilized to conceptualize themes. Eight semistructured interviews took place with four individuals and four caregivers. Three themes were conceptualized which elucidated key aspects of how digital tools were utilized in disease management: (1) digital tools should lessen the burden of managing a rare disease condition; (2) digital tools should foster community building and promote trust; and (3) digital tools should provide trusted and personalized information to understand the condition and what the future may hold. These results suggest that digital tools play a central role in the lives of individuals with rare disease and their caregivers. Digital tools that centralize trustworthy information, and that bring the relevant community together to interact and promote trust are needed. Genetic counselors can consider these ideal attributes of digital tools when providing resources to individuals and caretakers of rare disease.

Ambivalence and uncertainty are key themes throughout the psychology of healthcare literature. This is especially so for individuals at risk of Huntington's disease (HD) deliberating the decision to undergo genetic testing because there is currently no treatment that modifies disease progression. A better understanding of the experience of making a decision about genetic prediction will help practitioners support and guide individuals through this process. Our aim was to capture participants' experiences of uncertainty and ambivalence in between their genetic counseling appointments. We explored these issues through the experiences of nine participants who were referred for predictive HD testing at four regional genetics services in England and Wales. Data consisted of recordings of clinic consultations, diaries, and an in-depth interview conducted at the end of the testing process. Data were analyzed thematically. Four themes were identified representing four possible futures, each future dependent on the decision to undergo testing and the result of that test. Our results showed that participants, as well as attending more to a future that represents their current situation of not having undergone predictive testing, also attended more to a distant future where a positive predictive result is received and symptoms have started. Participants attended less to the two futures that were more immediate once testing was undertaken (a future where a positive result is received and symptoms have not started and a future where a negative result is received). The use of diaries gave us a unique insight into these participants' experiences of ambivalence and uncertainty, psychological distress, and the emotional burden experienced. These findings help inform discussions within the clinic appointment as well as encourage researchers to consider diary use as a method of exploring what happens for individuals outside of clinical encounters.

The dystrophinopathies encompass the phenotypically variable forms of muscular dystrophy caused by pathogenic variants in the DMD gene. The dystrophinopathies include the most common inherited muscular dystrophy among 46,XY individuals, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, as well as Becker muscular dystrophy and other less common phenotypic variants. With increased access to and utilization of genetic testing in the diagnostic and carrier setting, genetic counselors and clinicians in diverse specialty areas may care for individuals with and carriers of dystrophinopathy. This practice resource was developed as a tool for genetic counselors and other health care professionals to support counseling regarding dystrophinopathies, including diagnosis, health risks and management, psychosocial needs, reproductive options, clinical trials, and treatment. Genetic testing efforts have enabled genotype/phenotype correlation in the dystrophinopathies, but have also revealed unexpected findings, further complicating genetic counseling for this group of conditions. Additionally, the therapeutic landscape for dystrophinopathies has dramatically changed with several FDA-approved therapeutics, an expansive research pathway, and numerous clinical trials. Genotype–phenotype correlations are especially complex and genetic counselors' unique skill sets are useful in exploring and explaining this to families. Given the recent advances in diagnostic testing and therapeutics related to dystrophinopathies, this practice resource is a timely update for genetic counselors and other healthcare professionals involved in the diagnosis and care of individuals with dystrophinopathies.

The benefits and harms of identifying carriers in childhood have long been debated with European Guidelines advising against this practice. Yet over a thousand carriers are identified via newborn bloodspot screening per year in the United Kingdom alone. One of the concerns about identification is the impact it has on an individual's identity. This, in part, will be determined by how parents and peers view carriers, particularly during young adulthood. To address the paucity of research looking at how carriers are perceived by peers, this study sought to explore the views of young adults, who themselves are not carriers, toward carriers. As the narratives around COVID-19 increased, the salience of the term “carrier”, the impact of such narratives on perceptions, was also explored. Twenty-five 18–25 year olds participated in a diary-interview study in the United Kingdom during 2021 to explore their perceptions of carriers via hypothetical scenarios. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Interviewees believed carriers would experience stigma—including societal and self-stigma. This was because people used existing illness beliefs to make sense of carrier status about which they had low levels of understanding. Interviewees believed carriers would experience challenges in familial and romantic relationships due to others' judgments. They also believed parents of carriers would experience a burden around making reproductive decisions, with clear views on what society would view as acceptable choices. Importantly interviewees felt knowledge of ones' own carrier status conferred complex communication challenges within relationships. These findings suggest an urgent need for more research and support for young adults entering a key stage in life for identity formation who have knowledge of their carrier status. The results suggest that support targeted toward the carrier regarding navigating complex communication and targeted more broadly to avoid stigma based on misunderstanding should be researched and developed.