Attitudes and beliefs of pediatricians and genetic counselors regarding testing and screening for CF and G6PD: Implications for policy

Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A (Impact Factor: 2.05). 11/2006; 140(21):2305-11. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.31463
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is wide variability in conditions included in state newborn screening (NBS) panels. The American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) was commissioned by Health Resources and Services Administration to develop a uniform NBS panel. Based on survey data, the ACMG committee proposed a panel that included cystic fibrosis (CF) and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD), although G6PD was excluded from their final recommendations. We examine the attitudes of pediatricians and genetic counselors concerning screening for these two conditions. Data were collected as part of two different studies. Koopmans and Ross surveyed a random sample of 600 pediatricians from four states based on their NBS panels. Hiraki et al. surveyed genetic counselors who were members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) listserv. For this analysis, we compare the health care professionals' (HCPs') attitudes toward a universal NBS program for CF and G6PD, and how their support is influenced by state policy and personal interest in testing their own children. Two hundred twenty-three pediatricians and 267 genetic counselors provided partial or complete responses. Pediatricians are more likely to support NBS for both CF (84%) and G6PD (58%) than genetic counselors (56%, P < 0.001 and 39%, P < 0.001, respectively). Both pediatricians and genetic counselors' attitudes toward screening correlate with interest in screening their own children (P < 0.001). Interest in CF screening also correlates with state policy (pediatricians, P < 0.001; genetic counselors, P < 0.025). The correlation of professional recommendations with state policies and personal preferences reinforces the need for systematic evidence-based reviews rather than reliance on stakeholder opinions for developing national guidelines.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Expanded newborn screening (NBS) identifies some disorders for which clinical benefit is uncertain, as well as "incidental" findings (eg, carrier status), thus enhancing the need to inform parents about NBS before sample collection. A self-complete survey was sent to a cross-sectional, stratified, random sample of 5 provider groups in Ontario (obstetricians, midwives, family physicians, pediatricians, and nurses). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate the effects of core beliefs, perceived barriers, and demographic characteristics on the reported frequency of informing parents about NBS before sample collection. Virtually all of the midwives and almost half of the nurses reported discussing NBS with parents, whereas less than one sixth of the physicians did so. Providers who perceived a responsibility to inform parents were 3 times more likely to report doing so than those who did not perceive this responsibility (odds ratio: 2.9 [95% confidence interval: 2.1-4.1]). Those who lacked confidence to inform parents were 70% less likely to discuss NBS with parents compared with those who did not experience this cognitive barrier (odds ratio: 0.3 [95% confidence interval: 0.2-0.4]). Controlling for these covariates, family physicians and obstetricians were more likely than pediatricians to inform parents. These results provide guidance for capacity building among providers who are positioned to inform parents about NBS before sample collection. Our findings call for targeted educational interventions that consider patterns of provider practice related to prenatal and NBS care, seek to redress confidence limitations, and engage key provider groups in the importance of this professional responsibility.
    PEDIATRICS 09/2009; 124(3):950-8. DOI:10.1542/peds.2008-3148 · 5.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the availability of testing for hereditary diseases, genetic testing of minors has stirred controversy as regards the ethical implications of the tests. The fear that genetic testing of children could have adverse social, emotional. psychosocial and educational consequences in childhood or later life has motivated a cautious approach. In summary, guidelines agree that genetic testing of children is appropriate in two situations. The first is the testing of a symptomatic child if the tests are likely to help establish a diagnosis and/or a prognosis and to avoid further invasive diagnostic tests. The second is predictive genetic testing in healthy children where onset of the condition regularly occurs in childhood and useful medical interventions can be offered.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Genetic susceptibility research and testing is leading to an era of personalized medicine. Genetic counselors act as liaisons between the medical genetics community and the public. Understanding the opinions of genetic counselors will be important in developing testing guidelines. Attitudes towards genetic susceptibility testing in children were assessed for 216 NSGC members. Genetic counselors were likely to support testing if the results would determine: disease progression or prognosis, likelihood of survival after a specific treatment, or risk for an adverse drug reaction. Genetic counselors were unlikely to support testing to determine susceptibility to later disease development or in the absence of available intervention. There was a strong positive correlation between attitudes associated with desire to test their own child, if at risk and their support for genetic testing in any child at risk. Respondents strongly favored parent/guardian and child's rights over doctor or insurance rights. They indicated assent should be obtained prior to testing, when appropriate, and that a copy of results should be kept in a permanent medical record. Respondents expressed concerns about insurance discrimination, testing in the absence of medical necessity, and taking away a child's autonomy.
    Journal of Genetic Counseling 04/2010; 19(4):402-16. DOI:10.1007/s10897-010-9298-9 · 1.75 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 31, 2014