Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 539–550 | Cite as

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

  • K. E. Ormond
  • M. Iris
  • S. Banuvar
  • J. Minogue
  • G. J. Annas
  • S. Elias
Original Research

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.

Keywords

Informed consent Patient decision-making Genetic carrier test Patient expectations Generic consent 

References

  1. ACOG (2007). Practice Bulletin No. 78: Hemoglobinopathies in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol, 109:229–237Google Scholar
  2. ACOG & ACMG (2001). Preconception and prenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: Clinical and laboratory guidelines.Google Scholar
  3. Annas, G. J. (2004). The rights of patients (3rd ed.). New York: NYU Press, Ch. 6.Google Scholar
  4. Annas, G. J., Glantz, L. H., & Katz, B. F. (1977). Informed consent to human experimentation (pp. 33–38). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  5. Clayton, E. W., Hannig, V. L., Pfotenhauer, J. P., Parker, R. A., Campbell, P. W., 3rd, & Phillips, J. A., 3rd (1996). Lack of interest by nonpregnant couples in population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening. American Journal of Human Genetics, 58(3), 617–627.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, T. C., Long, S. W., Jackson, R. H., Mayeaux, A. J., George, R. B., Murphy, P. W., et al. (1993). Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: A shortened screening instrument. Family Medicine, 25, 391–395.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, T. C., Michielutte, R., Askov, E. N., Williams, M. V., & Weiss, B. D. (1998). Practical assessment of adult literacy in healthcare. Health Education & Behavior, 25, 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Elias, S., & Annas, G. J. (1994). Generic consent for genetic screening. New England Journal of Medicine, 330(22), 1611–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feld, A. D. (2004) Informed consent: Not just for procedures anymore. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 99(6), 977–980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forrester, M. B., & Merz, R. C. (1999). Prenatal diagnosis and elective termination of down syndrome in a racially mixed population in Hawaii, 1987–1996. Prenatal Diagnosis, 19(2), 136–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser, F. C. (1974). Genetic counseling. American Journal of Human Genetics, 26, 636–661.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lidz, C. W., Applebaum, P. S., & Meisel, A. (1988). Two models of implementing informed consent. Archives of Internal Medicine, 148, 1385–1389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Michie, S., Dormandy, E., & Marteau, T. M. (2003). Informed choice: Understanding knowledge in the context of screening uptake. Patient Education and Counseling, 50(3), 247–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1982). Making health care decisions. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
  17. Redelmeier, D. A., & Shafir, E. (1995). Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(4), 302–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Resta, R., Biesecker, B. B., Bennett, R. L., Blum, S., Estabrooks Hahn, S., Strecker, M., et al. (2006). A new definition of genetic counseling: National society of genetic counselors' task force report. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(2), 77–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rodwin, M. (1993). Medicine, money, and morals (pp. 214–215). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ryan, G., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to develop themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scientific Software Development. Atlas.ti. Distributed by Scolari Software, Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks: CA.Google Scholar
  22. Simpson, J. L., & Elias, S. E. (2003). Genetics in obstetrics and gynecology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. E. Ormond
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • M. Iris
    • 3
  • S. Banuvar
    • 4
  • J. Minogue
    • 4
  • G. J. Annas
    • 5
  • S. Elias
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Center for Genetic Medicine, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Medical Humanities and Bioethics, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Leonard Schanfield Research InstituteCouncil for Jewish ElderlyChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Department of Health Law, Bioethics and Human RightsBoston University School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  6. 6.ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations