» Articles » PMID: 17492496

What Do Patients Prefer: Informed Consent Models for Genetic Carrier Testing

Overview
Journal J Genet Couns
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Genetics
Date 2007 May 12
PMID 17492496
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The recent increased number of conditions for which patients can undergo genetic carrier testing raises the question of how best to obtain pre-test informed consent. Clinical approaches vary from a minimalist model to a model where patients are given detailed information about all conditions to be screened for. Few data exist as to patient preferences, or how information impacts decision-making. Eight high-literacy focus groups were conducted to assess the knowledge and preferences of pregnant patients and their male partners. Most groups indicated that some balance between details and brevity was optimal, recognizing that anxiety can occur when patients are provided with too much information and that the wide range of tests offered during pregnancy often led to confusion. Critical areas for the informed consent process included (1) details about the conditions and risk of being a carrier, (2) logistics of testing, (3) next steps if the test is positive, and (4) prognosis, options and resources if the child were to be affected with a disorder. It will be useful to develop model consent programs and prospectively assess their impact on informed consent and patient satisfaction, both when positive and negative results are received.

Citing Articles

Not just a carrier: Clinical presentation and management of patients with heterozygous disease-causing alkaline phosphatase (ALPL) variants identified through expanded carrier screening.

Beck N, Sagaser K, Lawson C, Hertenstein C, Jachens A, Forster K Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2022; 11(1):e2056.

PMID: 36444396 PMC: 9834184. DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.2056.


A cross-sectional survey of genetic counselors providing carrier screening regarding GBA variants and Parkinson disease susceptibility.

Jones T, Schulze J, Aufox S, Rothstein J, Arjunan A J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022; 39(3):747-755.

PMID: 35146589 PMC: 8995214. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02430-2.


Assessing clinical education tools for expanded carrier screening.

Dugger C, Anderson H, Miller C, Wong B, Johnson E, Rothwell E J Genet Couns. 2020; 30(2):606-615.

PMID: 33135283 PMC: 8026544. DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1349.


Should Clinicians Leave "Expanded" Carrier Screening Decisions to Patients?.

Fakih A, Spector-Bagdady K AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(10):E858-864.

PMID: 31651385 PMC: 6988386. DOI: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.858.


Autonomy Challenges in Epigenetic Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening: How Can Patient Decision Aids Support Informed Consent?.

Alblas M, Schermer M, Vergouwe Y, Bolt I J Pers Med. 2019; 9(1).

PMID: 30781705 PMC: 6463084. DOI: 10.3390/jpm9010014.


References
1.
Fraser F . Genetic counseling. Am J Hum Genet. 1974; 26(5):636-59. PMC: 1762720. View

2.
. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 78: hemoglobinopathies in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109(1):229-37. DOI: 10.1097/00006250-200701000-00055. View

3.
Resta R, Biesecker B, Bennett R, Blum S, Hahn S, Strecker M . A new definition of Genetic Counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors' Task Force report. J Genet Couns. 2006; 15(2):77-83. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3. View

4.
Forrester M, Merz R . Prenatal diagnosis and elective termination of Down syndrome in a racially mixed population in Hawaii, 1987-1996. Prenat Diagn. 1999; 19(2):136-41. View

5.
Lidz C, Appelbaum P, Meisel A . Two models of implementing informed consent. Arch Intern Med. 1988; 148(6):1385-9. View