Search

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommends carrier screening for all pregnant women regardless of race or ethnicity. In recent years, the ACMG broadened the guidelines to include expanded carrier screening (ECS) which can screen for 112 conditions. This study seeks to explore the perceptions of pregnant Latina women about the benefits and concerns related to ECS use. Partnering with prenatal clinics in Texas, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 pregnant Latina women in their second or third trimester of pregnancy. NVivo 8 was used to conduct content analysis and emergent coding of the data. Participants reported the benefits of ECS as helping them prepare for the baby's arrival, informing them of the baby's risk for genetic conditions, ensuring the health of their baby, and preventing diseases before birth. The ECS-related concerns expressed by the participants included worries surrounding potential positive ECS results, insufficient knowledge about the genetic diseases screened for by ECS, the accuracy of the ECS, the potential harm ECS may cause the baby, and the affordability of ECS. After weighing both their perceived benefits and concerns, nearly all the participants believed that ECS should be offered to all pregnant women. This study contributes to an understudied research area in the genetic/genomic field. Our findings can help increase the awareness of obstetricians, genetic professionals, and other healthcare providers regarding pregnant Latina women's views on ECS and inform the design of culturally appropriate care as ECS is adopted into routine clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic testing is one of the most high-yield diagnostic tests in the evaluation of pediatric sensorineural (SNHL) hearing loss, leading to a genetic diagnosis in 40–65% of patients. Previous research has focused on the utility of genetic testing in pediatric SNHL and otolaryngologists' general understanding of genetics. This qualitative study examines otolaryngologists' perceptions about facilitators and barriers when ordering genetic testing in the workup of pediatric hearing loss. Potential solutions for overcoming barriers are also explored. Eleven (N = 11) semi-structured interviews were conducted with otolaryngologists in the USA. Most participants were currently practicing in a southern, academic, urban setting and had completed a pediatric otolaryngology fellowship. Insurance was one of the main barriers to testing, and increased genetics provider accessibility was the most frequently cited solution to increase utilization of genetic services. Difficulty acquiring insurance coverage and unfamiliarity with the genetic testing process were the most common reasons otolaryngologists referred patients to genetics clinics for genetic testing, as opposed to ordering testing themselves. This study suggests that otolaryngologists recognize the importance and utility of genetic testing, but a lack of genetics-specific skills, knowledge, and resources makes it difficult for them to facilitate testing. Multidisciplinary hearing loss clinics that include genetics providers may increase the overall accessibility of genetic services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare disparities exist in the provision of cancer genetic services including genetic counseling and testing related to BRCA1/2 mutations. To address this in a community health setting a screening tool was created to identify high-risk women. This study evaluates the implementation of the tool and identifies opportunities for improved cancer genetic screening, including regular clinician education. A mixed-method approach was used to evaluate clinician utilization of the screening tool at Planned Parenthood affiliates. Novel surveys that evaluated acceptance and implementation were administered to clinicians (n = 14) and semi-structured interviews (n = 6) were used to explore clinicians' perspectives and identify gaps in its utilization. Educational modules that addressed gaps were developed, implemented, and evaluated using a post-education survey (n = 8). Clinicians reported confidence in administering and interpreting the screening tool, but reported less confidence in their knowledge of cancer genetics and ability to connect clients with genetic counseling and testing (p = .003). Educational modules resulted in significant gains in clinician knowledge on genetic topics (p < .05) and increased self-reported confidence in connecting clients with genetic services. The modules reinforced the belief that genetic testing is beneficial for patients at increased risk (p = .001) and is important to inform subsequent medical management (p = .027). While building community clinicians' capacity to connect clients with genetic services is crucial, it is challenged by knowledge and confidence gaps in discussions of genetic services with clients. Consistent genetic-focused education with non-genetic clinicians can improve confidence and knowledge, enabling a more effective screening program in community health settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]