Search

Objective To study pregnant women's subjective viewpoints on what is important when receiving information prior to decision-making regarding prenatal testing for chromosomal anomalies. Method Data were collected using Q methodology. During January 2020—October 2021, 45 pregnant women in Sweden completed a 50-item Q sort. Statements regarding what is important when receiving information about prenatal screening and diagnosis were prioritized through ranking in a fixed sorting grid on an 11-point scale, from “most important” to “least important.” Socio-demographics and coping styles were surveyed through questionnaires. Results Three groups represented different viewpoints on what pregnant women consider important when receiving information about prenatal screening and diagnosis. Factor 1: Stepwise information and decision-making: viewing information and decision-making as a step-by-step process. Factor 2: Decision-making as a continuous process based on couple autonomy: Striving for an informed decision as a couple about tests, test results and conditions screened. Factor 3: As much information as early as possible—the importance of personal autonomy in decision-making: Prioritizing autonomous decision-making based on non-directive information early in the pregnancy. Conclusion This study highlights the complexities involved when providing information. As shown by the differing viewpoints in this study, pregnant women's informational needs differ, making individual and personalized information preferable.

Genetic research has identified a large number of genetic variants, both rare and common, underlying neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) and major psychiatric disorders. Currently, these findings are being translated into clinical practice. However, there is a lack of knowledge and guidelines for psychiatric genetic testing (PsychGT) and genetic counseling (PsychGC). The European Union-funded COST action EnGagE (CA17130) network was started to investigate the current implementation status of PsychGT and PsychGC across 35 participating European countries. Here, we present the results of a pan-European online survey in which we gathered the opinions, knowledge, and practices of a self-selected sample of professionals involved/interested in the field. We received answers from 181 respondents. The three main occupational categories were genetic counselor (21.0%), clinical geneticist (24.9%), and researcher (25.4%). Of all 181 respondents, 106 provide GC for any psychiatric disorder or NDD, corresponding to 58.6% of the whole group ranging from 43.2% in Central Eastern Europe to 66.1% in Western Europe. Overall, 65.2% of the respondents reported that genetic testing is offered to individuals with NDD, and 26.5% indicated the same for individuals with major psychiatric disorders. Only 22.1% of the respondents indicated that they have guidelines for PsychGT. Pharmacogenetic testing actionable for psychiatric disorders was offered by 15%. Interestingly, when genetic tests are fully covered by national health insurance, more genetic testing is provided for individuals with NDD but not those with major psychiatric disorders. Our qualitative analyses of responses highlight the lack of guidelines and knowledge on utilizing and using genetic tests and education and training as the major obstacles to implementation. Indeed, the existence of psychiatric genetic training courses was confirmed by only 11.6% of respondents. The question on the relevance of up-to-date education and tra, De tre första författarna delar förstaförfattarskapet

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally. Methods We analyzed the “Your DNA, Your Say” online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date. Results There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States. Conclusion There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people’s intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants’ preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

Objective: We conducted a survey-based discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to understand the test features that drive women's preferences for prenatal genomic testing, and explore variation across countries. Methods: Five test attributes were identified as being important for decision-making through a literature review, qualitative interviews and quantitative scoring exercise. Twelve scenarios were constructed in which respondents choose between two invasive tests or no test. Women from eight countries who delivered a baby in the previous 24 months completed a DCE presenting these scenarios. Choices were modeled using conditional logit regression analysis. Results: Surveys from 1239 women (Australia: n = 178; China: n = 179; Denmark: n = 88; Netherlands: n = 177; Singapore: n = 90; Sweden: n = 178; UK: n = 174; USA: n = 175) were analyzed. The key attribute affecting preferences was a test with the highest diagnostic yield (p < 0.01). Women preferred tests with short turnaround times (p < 0.01), and tests reporting variants of uncertain significance (VUS; p < 0.01) and secondary findings (SFs; p < 0.01). Several country-specific differences were identified, including time to get a result, who explains the result, and the return of VUS and SFs. Conclusion: Most women want maximum information from prenatal genomic tests, but our findings highlight country-based differences. Global consensus on how to return uncertain results is not necessarily realistic or desirable.

Background Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this. Methods We analyse the ‘Your DNA, Your Say’ online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle- and high-income countries, gathered in 15 languages. We examine how participants perceived the relative value of measures to demonstrate the trustworthiness of those using donated DNA and/or medical information. We examine between-country variation and present a consolidated ranking of measures. Results Providing transparent information about who will benefit from data access was the most important measure to increase trust, endorsed by more than 50% of participants across 20 of 22 countries. It was followed by the option to withdraw data and transparency about who is using data and why. Variation was found for the importance of measures, notably information about sanctions for misuse of data—endorsed by 5% in India but almost 60% in Japan. A clustering analysis suggests alignment between some countries in the assessment of specific measures, such as the UK and Canada, Spain and Mexico and Portugal and Brazil. China and Russia are less closely aligned with other countries in terms of the value of the measures presented. Conclusions Our findings highlight the importance of transparency about data use and about the goals and potential benefits associated with data sharing, including to whom such benefits accrue. They show that members of the public value knowing what benefits accrue from the use of data. The study highlights the importance of locally sensitive measures to increase trust as genomic data sharing continues globally.

Objectives: To conduct qualitative interviews with healthcare providers working in different countries to understand their experiences of dealing with uncertain results from prenatal chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES). Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 31 healthcare providers who report or return prenatal CMA and/or ES results (clinicians, genetic counsellors and clinical scientists) in six countries with differing healthcare systems; Australia (4), Denmark (5), Netherlands (6), Singapore (4), Sweden (6) and United Kingdom (6). The topic guide explored the main sources of uncertainty and their management. Results: There was variation in reporting practices both between and across countries for variants of uncertain significance, however, there was broad agreement on reporting practices for incidental findings. There was also variation in who decides what results are reported (clinical scientists or clinicians). Technical limitations and lack of knowledge (to classify variants and of prenatal phenotypes) were significant challenges, as were turnaround times and lack of guidelines. Conclusion: Health professionals around the globe are dealing with similar sources of uncertainty, but managing them in different ways, Continued dialogue with international colleagues on ways of managing uncertain results is important to compare and contrast the benefits and limitations of the different approaches.

Psychiatric genetic counseling (PGC) is gradually developing globally, with countries in various stages of development. In some, PGC is established as a service or as part of research projects while in others, it is just emerging as a concept. In this article, we describe the current global landscape of this genetic counseling specialty and this field's professional development. Drawing on information provided by expert representatives from 16 countries, we highlight the following: (a) current understanding of PGC; (b) availability of services for patients; (c) availability of training; (d) healthcare system disparities and cultural differences impacting practice; and (e) anticipated challenges going forward.

Objectives: To investigate decision making among pregnant women when choosing between noninvasive prenatal testing, invasive testing, or no further testing. Methods: Women with a high-risk result from the first trimester screening were invited to fill in two online questionnaires at gestational age 12 to 14 (Q1) and 24 weeks (Q2). The scales used were Decisional Conflict and Regret Scales, Satisfaction with genetic Counselling Scale, and Health-Relevant Personality Inventory. Results: Three hundred thirty-nine women agreed to participate, and the response rates were 76% on Q1 and 88% on Q2. A percentage of 75.4% chose an invasive test, 23.8% chose noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), 0.4% chose no further testing, and 0.4% had both NIPT and invasive testing. Among all participants, 13.3% had a high level of decisional conflict. We found that choosing NIPT was associated with a high decisional conflict (p = 0.013), receiving genetic counselling the same day was associated with a high decisional conflict (p = 0.039), and a high satisfaction with the genetic counselling was associated with low decisional conflict (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the personality subtrait alexithymia was associated with low decisional conflict (p = 0.043). There was a significant association between high decisional conflict and later decisional regret (p = 0.008). Conclusion: We present evidence that satisfaction with and timing of counselling are important factors to limit decisional conflict. Interestingly, women choosing NIPT had more decisional conflict than women choosing invasive testing.