b-thalassaemia is one of the most common single-gene inherited conditions in the world, and thalassaemia carrier screening is the most widely performed genetic screening test, occurring in many different countries. b-thalassaemia carrier screening programmes provide a unique opportunity to compare the delivery of carrier screening programmes carried out in different cultural, religious and social contexts. This review compares the key characteristics of b-thalassaemia carrier screening programmes implemented in countries across the world so that the differences and similarities between the programmes can be assessed. The manner in which thalassaemia carrier screening programmes are structured among different populations varies greatly in several aspects, including whether the programmes are mandatory or voluntary, the education and counselling provided and whether screening is offered pre-pregnancy or antenatally. National and international guidelines make recommendations on the most appropriate ways in which genetic carrier screening programmes should be conducted; however, these recommendations are not followed in many programmes. We discuss the implications for the ethical and acceptable implementation of population carrier screening and identify a paucity of research into the outcomes of thalassaemia screening programmes, despite the fact that thalassaemia screening is so commonly conducted.
An anonymous survey of Australian Fellows of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was conducted with the aim of understanding current practice and attitudes toward population-based carrier screening for inherited conditions in the setting of routine pregnancy care. Of 1,121 Fellows invited to complete the online questionnaire by e-mail, 237 (21%) responded, and of these 156 were practicing obstetricians and completed the whole survey. Of the respondents, 83% expressed support for population-based carrier screening for at least some conditions, with 97% supporting carrier screening for -thalassaemia, and 83% supporting carrier screening for cystic fibrosis (CF). A small proportion of obstetricians reported offering carrier screening as part of routine pregnancy care (20% for -thalassaemia, 8% for CF, 5% for fragile X syndrome, and 2% for spinal muscular atrophy). The main practical barriers identified for screening were cost, time constraints, and availability of supporting services. Addressing these issues is crucial for the successful implementation of population-based carrier screening programs in Australia and internationally.
β-thalassemia screening in Victoria occurs with apparent lack of awareness of guidelines and an acknowledged preference for a more systematic process and educational support. Informed consent was not considered an important component of this screening process.
About 2.5 % of the Ashkenazi-Jewish population carry one of three "founder" mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2). Currently, testing is offered to Jewish people with a personal and/or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer; however less than half of BRCA1/2 carriers within the Jewish population are aware of their family history. Population-based testing in other countries has shown to greatly increase the number of mutation carriers identified, compared to targeted testing of people with a family history. We aimed to assess the Australian Jewish community's attitudes towards such a program, including acceptability and interest in having education and testing offered online. Members of Sydney-based Jewish organisations who self-identified as being Jewish were invited by e-mail to participate in an online survey. Of 370 individuals who completed the survey, 96.8 % supported a Jewish community-based BRCA1/2 testing program, and 65.6 % reported being personally interested in undergoing the test. Younger adults aged below 50 years were more interested in undergoing the test than those aged 50 years and above. Almost half (42.9 %) were aware of a family member with breast and/or ovarian cancer; however, of these, 77.1 % had not yet undergone testing. Sixty-five (65.1 %) percent were satisfied with providing consent online, while only 39.6 % of participants' first preference for method of information provision was online. Given the high level of support, and interest in a community testing program, the development and evaluation of a cost-effective and interactive, online BRCA1/2 community testing program appears warranted.
Screening programmes for BRCA1/2 Jewish Founder mutations (JFM) in the Jewish community have been advocated internationally. Implementation of these programmes could decrease morbidity and mortality of BRCA1/2 JFM carriers through the uptake of cancer screening strategies and risk-reducing surgery. An online programme offered to the Sydney Jewish community that delivers pre-test information and collects consent for BRCA1/2 JFM testing via a website is currently being evaluated (JeneScreen). Forty-three participants from JeneScreen were invited to participate in a sub-study, of semi-structured pre-and post-result telephone interviews. Eleven participants consented to the sub-study. The interviews explored their experiences regarding the online model of obtaining pre-test genetic information, giving consent and receiving results. Inductive thematic analysis was carried out on the interviews. Overarching themes identified include (1) embracing online testing, (2) the online pretest experience, (3) the result notification experience, (4) concerns associated with online testing and (5) testing as a responsibility. Overall, participants were highly satisfied with online BRCA1/2 JFM testing, an indication that the a website for pre-test information provision is an acceptable alternative to in-person genetic counselling for BRCA1/2 JFM screening and represents a feasible model for future community screening efforts.
Tests for haemoglobinopathy carrier status are the commonest genetic screening tests undertaken internationally. Carrier screening for β-thalassaemia is not coordinated in Victoria, Australia, and is instead incorporated into routine practice where most women are screened antenatally, through a full blood examination (FBE). Little is known about how women are screened for β-thalassaemia in Australia as well as their attitudes towards the screening process. This study was conducted to explore carriers' and carrier couples' experiences of and attitudes towards β-thalassaemia screening in Australia. Semi-structured interviews with 26 recently pregnant female carriers and ten carrier couples of β-thalassaemia were carried out. Interviews were analysed using inductive content analysis. Unexpectedly, more than half of the women had been made aware of their carrier status prior to pregnancy, with FBEs carried out for numerous reasons other than thalassaemia screening. Most women did not recall being told about thalassaemia before notification of their carrier status and therefore did not make a decision about being screened. They were generally accepting for doctors to decide about testing; however, would have preferred to have been made aware of the screening test. Women also reported receiving insufficient information after being notified of their carrier status, leading to misconceptions and confusion. This genetic screening process, incorporated into routine care whereby informed decisions were not being made by patients, was apparently acceptable overall. Based on the results of this study, we make the following recommendations: (1) individuals should be made aware that they are being tested for thalassaemia at least before a specific thalassaemia diagnostic test is performed; (2) current understanding by known carriers of thalassaemia should be assessed and any misconceptions corrected; (3) written information should be provided to carriers; (4) referral of carrier couples to specialists in thalassaemia and genetics is strongly recommended; (5) the term 'carrier of β-thalassaemia' should be used rather than 'thalassaemia minor'.
Aim Approximately 20–30% of children/adolescents with cancer will not respond to standard therapies. These children are usually offered experimental treatment in the form of an early‐phase clinical trial. We examined the perspectives of health‐care professionals (HCPs) regarding obtaining informed consent for early‐phase trials in paediatric oncology. Methods We collected survey data from 87 HCPs working in paediatric cancer centres across Australia and New Zealand. Results HCPs were, on average, 44 years old (range = 25–74), with 15.8 years' experience in paediatric oncology (range = 1–40). Few HCPs (17.4%) received training for early‐phase trial consent; however, most were willing to attend training (77.9%). HCPs (61.6%) reported that they informed families about early‐phase trials without any attempt to influence their decision. However, 23.3% of HCPs reported that they informed families that their child would benefit. HCPs' main obstacle in obtaining consent was their perception of parents' eagerness to ‘try anything’ (52.3%). HCPs perceived that many parents misunderstood key clinical trials concepts, with 25.2% of HCPs believing that not being given clear information influenced parents' decisions. Physicians were more likely than social workers/nurses to inform families that other children will benefit from enrolment in the study. Social workers/nurses appeared to rate the chance of benefits for the patient higher than physicians. Conclusions HCPs may experience difficulty conducting early‐phase trial consultations and obtaining valid informed consent. Our study highlights the need for formal training for HCPs and additional patient education tools.
IntroductionPeople of Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) ancestry are more likely than unselected populations to have a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant, which cause a significantly increased risk of breast, ovarian and prostate cancer. Three specific BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, referred to as BRCA-Jewish founder mutations (B-JFM), account for >90% of BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in people of AJ ancestry. Current practice of identifying eligible individuals for BRCA testing based on personal and/or family history has been shown to miss at least 50% of people who have one of these variants. Here we describe the protocol of the JeneScreen study—a study established to develop and evaluate two different population-based B-JFM screening programmes, offered to people of Jewish ancestry in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia.Methods and analysisTo rmeasure the acceptability of population-based B-JFM screening in Australia, two screening programmes using different methodologies have been developed. The Sydney JeneScreen programme provides information and obtains informed consent by way of an online tool. The Melbourne JeneScreen programme does this by way of community sessions attended in person. Participants complete questionnaires to measure clinical and psychosocial outcomes at baseline, and for those who have testing, 2 weeks postresult. Participants who decline testing are sent a questionnaire regarding reasons for declining. Participants with a B-JFM are sent questionnaires 12-month and 24-month post-testing. The questionnaires incorporate validated scales, which measure anxiety, decisional conflict and regret, and test-related distress and positive experiences, and other items specifically developed or adapted for the study. These measures will be assessed for each programme and the two population-based B-JFM screening methods will be compared.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Human Research Ethics Committee approval was obtained from the South Eastern Area Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee: HREC Ref 16/125.Following the analysis of the study results, the findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and publications, and directly to participants in writing.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.