Skip to main content
Log in

Reasons for Declining Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening Using Genome Sequencing

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Genetic Counseling

Abstract

Genomic carrier screening can identify more disease-associated variants than existing carrier screening methodologies, but its utility from patients’ perspective is not yet established. A randomized controlled trial for preconception genomic carrier screening provided an opportunity to understand patients’ decisions about whether to accept or decline testing. We administered a survey to potential genomic carrier screening recipients who declined participation (N = 240) to evaluate their reasons for doing so. Two thirds of women declined participation. We identified major themes describing reasons these individuals declined to participate; the most common were time limitation, lack of interest, not wanting to know the information, and potential cause of worry or anxiety. Most women eligible for genomic carrier screening indicated that their reasons for opting out were due to logistical issues rather than opposing the rationale for testing. As expanded carrier screening and genomic sequencing become a more routine part of clinical care, it is anticipated there will be variable uptake from individuals for this testing. Thus, the advancement of clinical carrier screening from single genes, to expanded screening panels, to an exome- or genome-wide platform, will require approaches that respect individual choice to receive genetic testing for reproductive risk assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACOG Committee on Genetics. (2005). ACOG committee opinion. Number 318, October 2005. Screening for Tay-Sachs disease. Washington: ACOG.

  • ACOG Committee on Genetics. (2007). ACOG practice bulletin no. 78: hemoglobinopathies in pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 109(1), 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ACOG Committee on Genetics. (2009a). ACOG committee opinion no. 432: spinal muscular atrophy. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 113(5), 1194–1196. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181a6d03a;00006250-200905000-00046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ACOG Committee on Genetics. (2009b). ACOG Committee opinion no. 442: preconception and prenatal carrier screening for genetic diseases in individuals of eastern European Jewish descent. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 114(4), 950–953. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181bd12f4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ACOG Committee on Genetics. (2010). ACOG Committee opinion no. 469: carrier screening for fragile X syndrome. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 116(4), 1008–1010. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fae884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American College of Medical Genetics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2001). Preconception and prenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: clinical and laboratory guidelines. In Washington, DC: ACOG. Bethesda: ACMG.

    Google Scholar 

  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. (2011). ACOG Committee opinion no. 486: update on carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 117(4), 1028–1031. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821922c2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, C. J., Dinwiddie, D. L., Miller, N. A., Hateley, S. L., Ganusova, E. E., Mudge, J., et al. (2011). Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next-generation sequencing. Sci Transl Med, 3(65), 65ra64. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H., & Ryan, G. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: systematic approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L. S., & Goodson, P. (2007). Factors affecting decisions to accept or decline cystic fibrosis carrier testing/screening: a theory-guided systematic review. Genetics in Medicine, 9(7), 442–450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. G., Feldman, G., Goldberg, J., Gregg, A. R., Norton, M. E., Rose, N. C., et al. (2015). Expanded carrier screening in reproductive medicine-points to consider: a joint statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Society of genetic counselors, perinatal quality foundation, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 125(3), 653–662. doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grody, W. W., Thompson, B. H., Gregg, A. R., Bean, L. H., Monaghan, K. G., Schneider, A., et al. (2013). ACMG position statement on prenatal/preconception expanded carrier screening. Genetics in Medicine, 15(6), 482–483. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henneman, L., Borry, P., Chokoshvili, D., Cornel, M. C., van El, C. G., Forzano, F., et al. (2016). Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. European Journal of Human Genetics, 24(6), e1–e12. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou, L., McClaren, B. J., Massie, J., Lewis, S., Metcalfe, S. A., Forrest, L., et al. (2014). Population-based carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: a systematic review of 23 years of research. Genetics in Medicine, 16(3), 207–216. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.125.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarin, G. A., Haque, I. S., Nazareth, S., Iori, K., Patterson, A. S., Jacobson, J. L., et al. (2013). An empirical estimate of carrier frequencies for 400+ causal Mendelian variants: results from an ethnically diverse clinical sample of 23, 453 individuals. Genetics in Medicine, 15(3), 178–186. doi:10.1038/gim.2012.114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leo, M. C., McMullen, C., Wilfond, B. S., Lynch, F. L., Reiss, J. A., Gilmore, M. J., et al. (2016). Patients' ratings of genetic conditions validate a taxonomy to simplify decisions about preconception carrier screening via genome sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part A, 170(3), 574–582. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.37477.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. O., Carroll, T. M., Feuerman, L. Z., Perry, D. L., Hoffman-Andrews, L., Walsh, R. C., et al. (2016). Participants and study Decliners' perspectives about the risks of participating in a clinical trial of whole genome sequencing. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(1), 21–30. doi:10.1177/1556264615624078.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J. L., Goddard, K. A., Davis, J., Wilfond, B., Kauffman, T. L., Reiss, J. A., et al. (2016). "is it worth knowing?" focus group Participants' perceived utility of genomic preconception carrier screening. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 25(1), 135–145. doi:10.1007/s10897-015-9851-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scollon, S., Bergstrom, K., Kerstein, R. A., Wang, T., Hilsenbeck, S. G., Ramamurthy, U., et al. (2014). Obtaining informed consent for clinical tumor and germline exome sequencing of newly diagnosed childhood cancer patients. Genome Medicine, 6(9), 69. doi:10.1186/s13073-014-0069-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2009). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilfond, B., & Goddard, K. A. B. (2015). It's complicated: criteria for policy decisions for the clinical integration of genome scale sequencing for reproductive decision-making. Molecular Genetics and Genomic Medicine, 3(4), 239–242.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the National Human Genome Research Institute (UM1HG007292; co-PIs: Wilfond, Goddard) with additional support from the Coordinating Center (U01HG007307; PI: Jarvik) as part of the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium. The authors thank the other members of the study team for their many useful insights and discussion about the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marian J. Gilmore.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Marian J. Gilmore, Jennifer Schneider, James V. Davis, Tia L. Kauffman, Michael C. Leo, Kellene Bergen, Jacob A. Reiss, Patricia Himes, Elissa Morris, Carol Young, Carmit McMullen, Benjamin S. Wilfond, and Katrina A.B. Goddard declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Animal Studies

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gilmore, M.J., Schneider, J., Davis, J.V. et al. Reasons for Declining Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening Using Genome Sequencing. J Genet Counsel 26, 971–979 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0074-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0074-y

Keywords

Navigation