This study has demonstrated the importance of providing timely access to accurate information and supportive, non-judgemental care for women and their partners following prenatal diagnosis of a fetal abnormality.
This study aims to explore stakeholder views about offering population-based genetic carrier screening for fragile X syndrome. A qualitative study using interviews and focus groups with stakeholders was undertaken to allow for an indepth exploration of views and perceptions about practicalities of, and strategies for, offering carrier screening for fragile X syndrome to the general population in healthcare settings. A total of 188 stakeholders took part including healthcare providers (n = 81), relatives of people with fragile X syndrome (n = 29), and members of the general community (n = 78). The importance of raising community awareness about screening and providing appropriate support for carriers was emphasized. There was a preference for preconception carrier screening and for providing people with the opportunity to make an informed decision about screening. Primary care was highlighted as a setting which would ensure screening is accessible; however, challenges of offering screening in primary care were identified including time to discuss screening, knowledge about the test and possible outcomes, and the health professionals' approach to offering screening. With the increasing availability of genetic carrier tests, it is essential that research now focuses on evaluating approaches for the delivery of carrier screening programs. Primary healthcare is perceived as an appropriate setting through which to access the target population, and raising awareness is essential to making genetic screening more accessible to the general community.
This project explored, the views of key stakeholders regarding population-based genetic carrier screening for fragile X syndrome (FXS). Interviews and focus groups were conducted with healthcare providers, relatives of individuals with FXS and members of the general population. Data were transcribed verbatim and coded into themes. 188 individuals took part in this study. Perceived benefits of carrier screening included: learning the risk of having a child with FXS; learning the risk of fragile X-associated primary ovarian insufficiency; and the opportunity for carriers to access reproductive options. Concerns included: the emotional impact of screening and receiving a carrier result; the predictive testing nature of the carrier test with respect to fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome; potential confusion created by receiving an intermediate result; and implications of genetic screening for society. Overall, population-based genetic carrier screening was perceived to be acceptable provided it is optional and offered at an appropriate stage of life. With the support of the participants to promote individual choice by offering a population-based carrier screening program for FXS, it is essential to carefully consider how screening might be offered in order to ensure broad accessibility and facilitation of decision-making.
Personal genomic testing provides healthy individuals with access to information about their genetic makeup for purposes including ancestry, paternity, sporting ability and health. Such tests are available commercially and globally, with accessibility expected to continue to grow, including in Australia; yet little is known of the views/expectations of Australians. Focus groups were conducted within a multi-stage, cross-disciplinary project (Genioz) to explore this. In mid-2015, 56 members of the public participated in seven focus groups, allocated into three age groups: 18–24, 25–49, and ≥50 years. Three researchers coded transcripts independently and generated themes. Awareness of personal genomic testing was low, but most could deduce what “personal genomics” might entail. Very few had heard of the term “direct-to-consumer” testing, which has implications for organisations developing information to support individuals in their decision-making. Participants’ understanding of genetics was varied and drawn from several sources. There were diverse perceptions of the relative influence of genetics and environment on health, mental health, behavior, talent, or personality. Views about having a personal genomic test were mixed, with greater interest in health-related tests if they believed there was a reason for doing so. However, many expressed scepticisms about the types of tests available, and how the information might be used; concerns were also raised about privacy and the potential for discrimination. These exploratory findings inform subsequent stages of the Genioz study, thereby contributing to strategies of supporting Australians to understand and make meaningful and well-considered decisions about the benefits, harms, and implications of personal genomic tests.
Personal genomic tests (PGTs) for multiple purposes are marketed to ostensibly healthy people in Australia. These tests are generally marketed and purchased online commercially or can be ordered through a health professional. There has been minimal engagement with Australians about their interest in and experience with ordering a PGT. As part of a multistage, interdisciplinary project, an online survey (Stage 2 of the Genioz study) was available from May 2016 to May 2017. In total, 3253 respondents attempted the survey, with 2395 completed Australian responses from people with and without experience of having a PGT: 72% were female; 59% of the whole sample were undertaking/or had a university education; and, overall, age ranged from 18—over 80. A total of 571 respondents reported having had a genetic test, 373 of these classifiable as a PGT. A bivariate analysis suggests people who have undergone PGT in our sample were: women aged 25 and over; or in a high socioeconomic group, or have a personal or family diagnosis of a genetic condition (
P
≤ 0.03). After a multivariate analysis, socioeconomic status and a genetic condition in the family were not of significance. The most common types of PGT reported were for carrier status and ancestry. Findings suggest greater awareness of, and an increasing demand for non-health related PGT in Australia. To support both consumers and health care professionals with understanding PGT results, there is a need for appropriate support and resources.
BackgroundPrader-Willi syndrome (PWS) and Angelman syndrome (AS) are neurodevelopmental disorders that are caused by abnormal expression of imprinted genes in the 15q11-13 region. Dysregulation of genes located in this region has been proposed as a susceptibility factor for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in both disorders.MethodsThis study aimed to explore symptoms of ASD in 25 PWS and 19 AS individuals aged between 1 and 39 years via objective assessment. Participants completed the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-2nd Edition (ADOS-2) and a developmentally or age-appropriate intellectual functioning assessment. All participants had their genetic diagnosis confirmed using DNA methylation analysis and microarray testing of copy number changes within the 15q11-13 region.ResultsParticipants with PWS had significantly higher overall and social affect calibrated severity scores (CSS) on the ADOS-2 compared to AS participants (p = .0055 and .0015, respectively), but the two groups did not differ significantly on CSS for the repetitive and restricted behaviour domain.ConclusionsPWS cases presented with greater symptoms associated with ASD compared to individuals with AS. Mental health issues associated with PWS may contribute to elevated symptoms of ASD, particularly in adolescents and adults with PWS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s11689-018-9242-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.