Objective: Recessive genetic diseases impose physical and psychological impacts to both newborns and parents who may not be aware of being carriers. Expanded carrier screening (ECS) allows screening for multiple genetic conditions at the same time. Whether or not such non-targeted panethnic approach of genetic carrier screening should replace the conventional targeted approach remains controversial. There is limited data on view and acceptance of ECS in general population, as well as the optimal timing of offering ECS to women. This study assesses views and acceptance of ECS in both pregnant women and non-pregnant women seeking fertility counseling or checkup and their reasons for accepting or declining ECS. Materials and methods: This is a questionnaire survey with ECS information in the form of pamphlets distributed from December 2016 to end of 2018. Women were recruited from the antenatal clinics and the assisted reproductive unit at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Mary Hospital and the prepregnancy counseling clinic at the Family Planning Association of Hong Kong. Results: A total of 923 women were recruited: 623 pregnant women and 300 nonpregnant women. There were significantly more non-pregnant women accepting ECS compared to pregnant women (70.7% vs. 61.2%). Eight hundred and sixty-eight (94%) women perceived ECS as at least as effective as or superior to traditional targeted screening. Significantly more pregnant women have heard about ECS compared with non-pregnant women (42.4% vs. 32.3%, P = 0.0197). Majority of women showed lack of understanding about ECS despite reading pamphlets that were given to them prior to filling in the questionnaires. Cost of ECS was a major reason for declining ECS, 28% (n = 256). Significantly more pregnant women worried about anxiety caused by ECS compared with the non-pregnant group (21.1% vs. 7.4%, P = 0.0006).

Counseling support, training, and better understanding and communication of findings of unclear clinical significance are necessary to improve doctor-patient experience.

IntroductionThe success rate of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for couples with infertility remains low due to lack of a reliable tool in selecting euploid embryos for transfer. This study aims to compare the efficacy in embryo selection based on morphology alone compared with non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (niPGT-A) and morphology in infertile women undergoing IVF.Methods and analysisThis is a randomised double-blind controlled trial conducted in two tertiary assisted reproduction centres. A total of 500 infertile women will be recruited and undergo IVF as indicated. They will be randomly assigned on day 6 after oocyte retrieval into two groups: the intervention group using morphology and niPGT-A and the control group based on morphology alone. In the control group, blastocysts with the best quality morphology will be replaced first. In the intervention group, blastocysts with the best morphology and euploid result of spent culture medium will be replaced first. The primary outcome is a live birth per the first embryo transfer. The statistical analysis will be performed with the intention to treat and per protocol.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was sought from the institutional review board of the two participating units. All participants will provide written informed consent before joining the study. The results of the study will be submitted to scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04474522.

No abstract