Deaf adults' reasons for genetic testing depend on cultural affiliation: results from a prospective, longitudinal genetic counseling and testing study

Clinical evaluation and etiologic diagnosis of hearing loss: A clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Hearing loss is a common and complex condition that can occur at any age, can be inherited or acquired, and is associated with a remarkably wide array of etiologies. The diverse causes of hearing loss, combined with the highly variable and often overlapping presentations of different forms of hearing loss, challenge the ability of traditional clinical evaluations to arrive at an etiologic diagnosis for many deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. However, identifying the etiology of hearing loss may affect clinical management, improve prognostic accuracy, and refine genetic counseling and assessment of the likelihood of recurrence for relatives of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Linguistic and cultural identities associated with being deaf or hard-of-hearing can complicate access to and the effectiveness of clinical care. These concerns can be minimized when genetic and other health care services are provided in a linguistically and culturally sensitive manner. This clinical practice resource offers information about the frequency, causes, and presentations of hearing loss and suggests approaches to the clinical and genetic evaluation of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals aimed at identifying an etiologic diagnosis and providing informative and effective patient education and genetic counseling.

Personal utility of genomic sequencing for infants with congenital deafness

Decisions about genetic testing have traditionally been based on clinical utility and cost, but personal utility is increasingly recognized when assessing the value of testing. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was offered to a population cohort of 106 infants diagnosed with congenital hearing loss. Parents could choose to receive results relating to hearing loss only or also learn additional information about childhood-onset conditions (medically nonactionable and/or actionable). This study aimed to quantify the personal utility of WES for parents after a diagnosis of hearing loss in their child. Parents completed surveys pretest (63/106), after hearing loss results (52/106) and after receiving additional information (47/72). Open-ended responses from all three surveys (N = 67) were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Answers to questions regarding the value of sequencing to parents were analyzed and collated. Parents placed high value on diagnostic WES for hearing loss but had different perspectives on the personal utility of additional information. Diagnostic results provided certainty while the choice to learn additional information about childhood-onset disorders was associated with empowerment. WES also represented an opportunity to promote their child's best interests. Results provide insights into the utility of WES for the indication of congenital deafness and for genomic newborn screening broadly.

Future directions for screening and treatment in congenital hearing loss

Hearing loss is the most common neurosensory deficit. It results from a variety of heritable and acquired causes and is linked to multiple deleterious effects on a child's development that can be ameliorated by prompt identification and individualized therapies. Diagnosing hearing loss in newborns is challenging, especially in mild or progressive cases, and its management requires a multidisciplinary team of healthcare providers comprising audiologists, pediatricians, otolaryngologists, and genetic counselors. While physiologic newborn hearing screening has resulted in earlier diagnosis of hearing loss than ever before, a growing body of knowledge supports the concurrent implementation of genetic and cytomegalovirus testing to offset the limitations inherent to a singular screening modality. In this review, we discuss the contemporary role of screening for hearing loss in newborns as well as future directions in its diagnosis and treatment.

In Different Voices: The Views of People with Disabilities about Return of Results from Precision Medicine Research

PURPOSE

Returning genetic results to research participants is gaining momentum in the USA. It is believed to be an important step in exploring the impact of efforts to translate findings from research to bedside and public health benefits. Some also hope that this practice will incentivize research participation, especially among people from historically marginalized communities who are commonly underrepresented in research. However, research participants' interest in receiving nongenomic medical and nonmedical results that may emerge from precision medicine research (PMR) is understudied and no study to date has explored the views of people with disabilities about return of genomic and nongenomic results from PMR.

METHODS

In a national online survey of people with disabilities, participants were queried about their interest in receiving biological, environmental, and lifestyle results from PMR (n = 1,294). Analyses describe findings for all of the participants and comparisons for key demographic characteristics and disability subgroups.

RESULTS

The participants expressed high interest in biological and health-related results and less interest in other findings. However, the interest among the study participants was lower than that found in comparable studies of the general population. Moreover, this interest varied significantly across gender, race/ethnicity, and disability subgroups. Possible reasons for these differences are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Insofar as return of results from PMR may impact translational efforts, it is important to better understand the role of sociomedical marginalization in decisions about return of results from PMR and to develop strategies to address existing barriers.

Is it ever morally permissible to select for deafness in one's child?

As reproductive genetic technologies advance, families have more options to choose what sort of child they want to have. Using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), for example, allows parents to evaluate several existing embryos before selecting which to implant via in vitro fertilization (IVF). One of the traits PGD can identify is genetic deafness, and hearing embryos are now preferentially selected around the globe using this method. Importantly, some Deaf families desire a deaf child, and PGD-IVF is also an option for them. Selection for genetic deafness, however, encounters widespread disapproval in the hearing community, including mainstream philosophy and bioethics. In this paper I apply Elizabeth Barnes' value-neutral model of disability as mere-difference to the case of selecting for deafness. I draw on evidence from Deaf Studies and Disability Studies to build an understanding of deafness, the Deaf community, and the circumstances relevant to reproductive choices that may obtain for some Deaf families. Selection for deafness, with deafness understood as mere-difference and valued for its cultural identity, need not necessitate impermissible moral harms. I thus advocate that it is sometimes morally permissible to select for deafness in one's child.

Reprogenetics, reproductive risks and cultural awareness: what may we learn from Israeli and Croatian medical students?

Background

Past studies emphasized the possible cultural influence on attitudes regarding reprogenetics and reproductive risks among medical students who are taken to be “future physicians.” These studies were crafted in order to enhance the knowledge and expand the boundaries of cultural competence. Yet such studies were focused on MS from relatively marginalized cultures, namely either from non-Western developing countries or minority groups in developed countries. The current study sheds light on possible cultural influences of the dominant culture on medical students in two developed countries, potentially with different dominant cultures regarding reprogenetics and reproductive risks: Israel and Croatia.

Methods

Quantitative-statistical analyses were employed, based on anonymous questionnaires completed by 150 first year medical students in Israel and Croatia. The questionnaires pertained to the knowledge and attitudes regarding genetics, reproduction and reproductive risks. These questionnaires were completed before the students were engaged in learning about these topics as part of the curriculum in their medical school.

Results

Substantial differences were revealed between the two groups of medical students. Israeli medical students were less tolerant regarding reproductive risks and more knowledgeable about genetics and reproductive risks than Croatian medical students. For example, while nearly all Israeli medical students (96%) disagreed with the idea that “Screening for reproductive risks in prospective parents is wrong,” less than 40% of their Croatian counterparts shared a similar stance. Similarly, all (100%) Israeli medical students correctly observed that “A carrier of a recessive genetic disease actually has the disease” was wrong, as opposed to only 82% of Croatian students.

Conclusions

By linking applicable theoretical literature to these findings, we suggest that they may reflect the hidden influence of the dominant culture in each country, disguised as part of the “culture of medicine.” Acknowledging and learning about such influence of the dominant culture, may be an important addition to the training of medical students in cultural competence, and specifically their cultural awareness. Such an acknowledgement may also pave the road to drawing the attention of existing physicians regarding a less known yet an important aspect of their cultural competence, insofar as the cultural awareness component is concerned.

Genetic testing for congenital non-syndromic sensorineural hearing loss

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 60% of congenital pediatric hearing loss is of genetic etiology. To evaluate non-syndromic sensorineural hearing loss (NSSNHL), guidelines emphasize the use of comprehensive genetic testing (CGT) with next generation sequencing (NGS), yet these tests have limited accessibility, and potential CGT results may not be well understood. Thus, our objective was to analyze genetic testing practices and results for pediatric patients with NSSNHL.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review of pediatric patients (<18 years) diagnosed with NSSNHL from 2014 to 2017 at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Demographics, clinical data, CGT results, genetic testing practices and referral patterns were recorded and descriptively analyzed. Logistic regression models identified patient characteristics associated with pathogenic variants (PV) and variants of unknown significance (VOUS).

RESULTS

430 patients with congenital NSSNHL were included in the study. Genetic testing was ordered for 28% (n = 122) and resulted for 16% (n = 68). Most of the ordered tests (89%, n = 109) were the CGT panel. A majority (62%, n = 97) of the time in which genetic testing was not ordered, a referral for genetics consultation was placed. Amongst those with CGT results, a definitive genetic etiology was identified in 25% (n = 13), with less than half due to variants of GJB2/6. At least one PV was identified for 33% (n = 18), while at least one VOUS for 93% (n = 51). There were no significant differences in PV presence or number of VOUS across any characteristic except race. When compared to Caucasians, African Americans had significantly higher rates of VOUS with a rate ratio and 95% CI of 1.61 [1.11-2.34], p = 0.01, and Asians trended towards higher rates (1.96 [0.95-4.05], p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

CGT is of high utility in the identification of relevant genetic variants and definitive genetic etiologies for pediatric patients with NSSNHL. Though guidelines recommend the early use of CGT, there are many barriers to appropriate testing and counseling, leading to low rates of CGT use at this single institution.

Bilingual Cancer Genetic Education Modules for the Deaf Community: Development and Evaluation of the Online Video Material

Health information about inherited forms of cancer and the role of family history in cancer risk for the American Sign Language (ASL) Deaf community, a linguistic and cultural community, needs improvement. Cancer genetic education materials available in English print format are not accessible for many sign language users because English is not their native or primary language. Per Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, the level of literacy for printed health education materials should not be higher than 6th grade level (~ 11 to 12 years old), and even with this recommendation, printed materials are still not accessible to sign language users or other nonnative English speakers. Genetic counseling is becoming an integral part of healthcare, but often ASL users are not considered when health education materials are developed. As a result, there are few genetic counseling materials available in ASL. Online tools such as video and closed captioning offer opportunities for educators and genetic counselors to provide digital access to genetic information in ASL to the Deaf community. The Deaf Genetics Project team used a bilingual approach to develop a 37-min interactive Cancer Genetics Education Module (CGEM) video in ASL with closed captions and quizzes, and demonstrated that this approach resulted in greater cancer genetic knowledge and increased intentions to obtain counseling or testing, compared to standard English text information (Palmer et al., Disability and Health Journal, 10(1):23-32, 2017). Though visually enhanced educational materials have been developed for sign language users with multimodal/lingual approach, little is known about design features that can accommodate a diverse audience of sign language users so the material is engaging to a wide audience. The main objectives of this paper are to describe the development of the CGEM and to determine if viewer demographic characteristics are associated with two measurable aspects of CGEM viewing behavior: (1) length of time spent viewing and (2) number of pause, play, and seek events. These objectives are important to address, especially for Deaf individuals because the amount of simultaneous content (video, print) requires cross-modal cognitive processing of visual and textual materials. The use of technology and presentational strategies is needed that enhance and not interfere with health learning in this population.

"My Plate is Full": Reasons for Declining a Genetic Evaluation of Hearing Loss

The aim of this study was to obtain patient and parent perspectives on genetic evaluation of hearing loss, in order to identify motivators, expectations, and barriers. Three focus groups were conducted following a semi-structured discussion guide, led by an independent moderator. Participants were hearing parents of children with permanent hearing loss or deaf adults. Qualitative content analysis was used to develop a codebook and identify major themes and subthemes. Participant views were compared to national guidelines. The 28 participants comprised 23 parents representing 21 unique families and 5 deaf adults. 13/21 families and 0/5 adults reported comorbidities, 4/21 families and 3/5 adults had a positive family history, and 12/21 families versus 0/5 adults had utilized genetics services. A common theme among adults and parents was a curiosity as to the cause of hearing loss. Parents were motivated to detect comorbidities and optimize care for hearing loss. Some parents felt overwhelmed by the hearing loss and unprepared to pursue early genetic evaluation as recommended in guidelines. Several reported positive experiences following genetics consultation, while others reported unease and unmet expectations. Notably, both parents and adults expressed ambivalence regarding the desire for genetic knowledge. Financial concerns and difficulties obtaining a referral were cited as extrinsic barriers. For parents of children with hearing loss, both the presence of comorbidities and a positive family history were drivers of genetics consultation and/or genetic testing. We identified educational opportunities for both patients and providers that would improve informed decision-making and increase access to genetic services. Consideration of the patient/family perspective and their decision-making processes, along with flexibility in the approach to genetics evaluation and its timing, will optimize both the development and implementation of guidelines.

Opinions of hearing parents about the causes of hearing impairment of their children with biallelic GJB2 mutations

Hereditary hearing impairment (HI) caused by recessive GJB2 mutations is a frequent sensory disorder. The results of the molecular-based studies of HI are widely used in various genetic test systems. However, the ethical aspects are less described than the genetic aspects. The concerns expressed by individuals from groups with genetic risks must be included in the counseling of patients and their families. For evaluation of subjective opinions of hearing parents about the presumed causes of HI of their children, we analyze the cohort of parents having children with confirmed hereditary HI caused by biallelic recessive GJB2 mutations (in a homozygous or a compound heterozygous state). This study included 70 deaf children with HI due to mutations in the GJB2 gene and 91 questionnaires about the presumed causes of their deafness filled by their parents. Most of the parents at 78% (CI 68.4-85.4%) attributed their children's HI to "non-hereditary" causes and 22% (CI 14.7-31.6%) to "hereditary" causes (p < 0.05). Therefore, the prior opinions of the parents did not correspond to positive GJB2 genetic testing results. The subjective opinions of parents are probably partly based on family history, since respondents with deaf relatives in their pedigree more likely supposed hereditary causes for HI in their children than the respondents without deaf relatives (p < 0.001).

Bilingual approach to online cancer genetics education for Deaf American Sign Language users produces greater knowledge and confidence than English text only: A randomized study

INTRODUCTION

Deaf American Sign Language-users (ASL) have limited access to cancer genetics information they can readily understand, increasing risk for health disparities. We compared effectiveness of online cancer genetics information presented using a bilingual approach (ASL with English closed captioning) and a monolingual approach (English text).

HYPOTHESIS

Bilingual modality would increase cancer genetics knowledge and confidence to create a family tree; education would interact with modality.

METHODS

We used a parallel 2:1 randomized pre-post study design stratified on education. 150 Deaf ASL-users ≥18 years old with computer and internet access participated online; 100 (70 high, 30 low education) and 50 (35 high, 15 low education) were randomized to the bilingual and monolingual modalities. Modalities provide virtually identical content on creating a family tree, using the family tree to identify inherited cancer risk factors, understanding how cancer predisposition can be inherited, and the role of genetic counseling and testing for prevention or treatment. 25 true/false items assessed knowledge; a Likert scale item assessed confidence. Data were collected within 2 weeks before and after viewing the information.

RESULTS

Significant interaction of language modality, education, and change in knowledge scores was observed (p = .01). High education group increased knowledge regardless of modality (Bilingual: p < .001; d = .56; Monolingual: p < .001; d = 1.08). Low education group increased knowledge with bilingual (p < .001; d = .85), but not monolingual (p = .79; d = .08) modality. Bilingual modality yielded greater confidence creating a family tree (p = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Bilingual approach provides a better opportunity for lower educated Deaf ASL-users to access cancer genetics information than a monolingual approach.

Impact of Genetic Counseling and Testing on Altruistic Motivations to Test for BRCA1/2: a Longitudinal Study

Despite the importance of altruism in an individual's participation in genetic counseling and testing, little research has explored the change in altruistic motivations to test over time. This study analyzed altruistic motivations to test and change in altruistic motivations after genetic counseling and testing among individuals (N = 120) at elevated risk for BRCA1/2 mutations. The perceived benefits of genetic testing were assessed and utilized in a mixed-methods, repeated measures design at three time points: pre-counseling, counseling and post-genetic testing, along with transcripts of genetic counseling sessions. Qualitative analysis using an immersion/crystallization method resulted in six common perceived benefits of testing: cancer prevention, awareness, family's survival, relief from anxiety, for science, and future planning. Perceived benefits were then coded into three categories according to Hamilton's kin selection theory: altruistic motivation, personal motivation, and motivation for mutual benefit. At pre-counseling, those with a personal cancer history (p = 0.003) and those with one or more children (p = 0.013), were significantly more likely to cite altruistic motivations to test. Altruistic motivations significantly increased post-counseling (p = 0.01) but declined post-testing (p < 0.001). Labov's narrative analysis further elucidated the context of altruistic and personal motivations. The possibility of a positive test result might have led those with personal history of cancer to have altruistic motivations for testing. Genetic counseling may have increased altruistic motivations to help family and may be a prime opportunity to discuss other forms of altruism.

Perception of Genetic Testing for Deafness and Factors Associated with Interest in Genetic Testing Among Deaf People in a Selected Population in Sub-Saharan Africa

Understanding the perceptions of genetic testing by members of the deaf community may help in planning deafness genetics research, especially so in the context of strong adherence to cultural values as found among native Africans. Among Yorubas in Nigeria, deafness is perceived to be caused by some offensive actions of the mother during pregnancy, spiritual attack, and childhood infections. We studied attitudes towards, and acceptance of genetic testing by the deaf community in Nigeria. Structured questionnaires were administered to individuals sampled from the Vocational Training Centre for the Deaf, the religious Community, and government schools, among others. The main survey items elicited information about the community in which the deaf people participate, their awareness of genetic testing, whether or not they view genetic testing as acceptable, and their understanding of the purpose of genetic testing. There were 150 deaf participants (61.3 % males, 38.7 % females) with mean age of 26.7 years ±9.8. A majority of survey respondents indicated they relate only with other members of the deaf community (78 %) and reported believing genetic testing does more good than harm (79.3 %); 57 % expressed interest in genetic testing. Interest in genetic testing for deafness or in genetic testing in pregnancy was not related to whether respondents relate primarily to the deaf or to the hearing community. However, a significantly higher number of male respondents and respondents with low education reported interest in genetic testing.

Toward ethical research practice with deaf participants

In recent years, scholars have been critical of what they consider unethical conduct by researchers whose studies focus on members of the Deaf or signing communities. This is the first empirical study that investigates ethical concerns and recommendations from the perspective of three stakeholder groups (Deaf research participants, researchers, and Deaf studies experts). We analyzed focus group discussions using strategies from grounded theory and community-based participatory research. The themes we identified highlight the need for the broader scientific research community to include linguistically and culturally sensitive research procedures that more adequately protect the rights of Deaf research participants, as well as other marginalized groups. We address the need to increase the number of Deaf scientists and reconsider collaboration practices between Deaf and hearing researchers.

Impact of genetic counseling and Connexin-26 and Connexin-30 testing on deaf identity and comprehension of genetic test results in a sample of deaf adults: a prospective, longitudinal study

Using a prospective, longitudinal study design, this paper addresses the impact of genetic counseling and testing for deafness on deaf adults and the Deaf community. This study specifically evaluated the effect of genetic counseling and Connexin-26 and Connexin-30 genetic test results on participants' deaf identity and understanding of their genetic test results. Connexin-26 and Connexin-30 genetic testing was offered to participants in the context of linguistically and culturally appropriate genetic counseling. Questionnaire data collected from 209 deaf adults at four time points (baseline, immediately following pre-test genetic counseling, 1-month following genetic test result disclosure, and 6-months after result disclosure) were analyzed. Four deaf identity orientations (hearing, marginal, immersion, bicultural) were evaluated using subscales of the Deaf Identity Development Scale-Revised. We found evidence that participants understood their specific genetic test results following genetic counseling, but found no evidence of change in deaf identity based on genetic counseling or their genetic test results. This study demonstrated that culturally and linguistically appropriate genetic counseling can improve deaf clients' understanding of genetic test results, and the formation of deaf identity was not directly related to genetic counseling or Connexin-26 and Connexin-30 genetic test results.

Motivation to pursue genetic testing in individuals with a personal or family history of cardiac events or sudden cardiac death

Genetic testing is becoming increasingly available for cardiac channelopathies, such as long QT syndrome and Brugada syndrome, which can lead to sudden cardiac death. Test results can be used to shape an individual's medical management and to identify at-risk family members. In our qualitative study, all participants had a personal or family history of a diagnosed cardiac arrhythmia syndrome or sudden cardiac death. Open-ended interviews were conducted individually and in focus groups. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a qualitative grounded-theory approach. Of 50 participants, 37 described their motivations for pursuing genetic testing for long QT syndrome or another cardiac channelopathy. Participants' motivations included: to find an explanation for a family member's sudden death, to relieve uncertainty regarding a diagnosis, to guide future medical management, to allay concern about children or other family members, and to comply with recommendations of physicians or family members. Perceived reasons not to pursue genetic testing included denial, fear, and lack of information. The genetic counseling and informed consent process can be enhanced by understanding and addressing an individual's internal and external motivations either for or against pursuing genetic testing.

American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guideline for the clinical evaluation and etiologic diagnosis of hearing loss

Hearing loss is a common and complex condition that can occur at any age, can be inherited or acquired, and is associated with a remarkably wide array of etiologies. The diverse causes of hearing loss, combined with the highly variable and often overlapping presentations of different forms of hearing loss, challenge the ability of traditional clinical evaluations to arrive at an etiologic diagnosis for many deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. However, identifying the etiology of a hearing loss may affect clinical management, improve prognostic accuracy, and refine genetic counseling and assessment of the likelihood of recurrence for relatives of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Linguistic and cultural identities associated with being deaf or hard of hearing can complicate access to and the effectiveness of clinical care. These concerns can be minimized when genetic and other health-care services are provided in a linguistically and culturally sensitive manner. This guideline offers information about the frequency, causes, and presentations of hearing loss and suggests approaches to the clinical evaluation of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals aimed at identifying an etiologic diagnosis and providing informative and effective patient education and genetic counseling.

Using a social marketing framework to evaluate recruitment of a prospective study of genetic counseling and testing for the deaf community

BACKGROUND

Recruiting deaf and hard-of-hearing participants, particularly sign language-users, for genetics health service research is challenging due to communication barriers, mistrust toward genetics, and researchers' unfamiliarity with deaf people. Feelings of social exclusion and lack of social cohesion between researchers and the Deaf community are factors to consider. Social marketing is effective for recruiting hard-to-reach populations because it fosters social inclusion and cohesion by focusing on the targeted audience's needs. For the deaf population this includes recognizing their cultural and linguistic diversity, their geography, and their systems for information exchange. Here we use concepts and language from social marketing to evaluate our effectiveness to engage a U.S. deaf population in a prospective, longitudinal genetic counseling and testing study.

METHODS

The study design was interpreted in terms of a social marketing mix of Product, Price, Place, and Promotion. Price addressed linguistic diversity by including a variety of communication technologies and certified interpreters to facilitate communication; Place addressed geography by including community-based participation locations; Promotion addressed information exchange by using multiple recruitment strategies. Regression analyses examined the study design's effectiveness in recruiting a culturally and linguistically diverse sample.

RESULTS

271 individuals were enrolled, with 66.1% American Sign Language (ASL)-users, 19.9% ASL + English-users, 12.6% English-users. Language was significantly associated with communication technology, participation location, and recruitment. Videophone and interpreters were more likely to be used for communication between ASL-users and researchers while voice telephone and no interpreters were preferred by English-users (Price). ASL-users were more likely to participate in community-based locations while English-users preferred medically-based locations (Place). English-users were more likely to be recruited through mass media (Promotion) while ASL-users were more likely to be recruited through community events and to respond to messaging that emphasized inclusion of a Deaf perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

This study design effectively engaged the deaf population, particularly sign language-users. Results suggest that the deaf population's cultural and linguistic diversity, geography, and forms of information exchange must be taken into account in study designs for successful recruitment. A social marketing approach that incorporates critical social determinants of health provides a novel and important framework for genetics health service research targeting specific, and hard-to-reach, underserved groups.

Deaf genetic testing and psychological well-being in deaf adults

Limited data suggest that enhanced self-knowledge from genetic information related to non-medical traits can have a positive impact on psychological well-being. Deaf individuals undertake genetic testing for deaf genes to increase self-knowledge. Because deafness is considered a non-medical trait by many individuals, we hypothesized that deaf individuals receiving a genetic explanation for why they are deaf will experience increased psychological well-being. We report results from a prospective, longitudinal study to determine the impact of genetic testing (GJB2, Cx26; GJB6, Cx30) on perceived personal control (PPC), anxiety, and depression in deaf adults (N = 209) assessed following pre-test genetic counseling as well as 1-month and 6-months following test result disclosure. Participants were classified as Cx positive (n = 82) or Cx negative/inconclusive (n = 127). There was significant evidence for Cx group differences in PPC and anxiety over time (PPC: Cx group*time interaction p = 0.0007; anxiety: Cx group*time interaction p = 0.002), where PPC scores were significantly higher, and anxiety scores were significantly lower for the Cx positive group relative to the negative/inconclusive group following test result disclosure. Compared to pre-test, PPC scores increased at 1-month (p = 0.07) and anxiety scores decreased at 6-months (p = 0.03) for the Cx positive group. In contrast, PPC scores decreased (p = 0.009, p < 0.0001) and anxiety scores increased (p = 0.09, p = 0.02) for the Cx negative/inconclusive group at 1- and 6-months post test result disclosure. Genetic testing for deaf genes affects the psychological well-being of deaf individuals. Increasing deaf adults' access to genetic testing may potentially enhance self-knowledge and increase psychological well-being for those who receive a genetic explanation, which could offer downstream health benefits.

Access to genetic testing and genetic counseling in vulnerable populations: the d/Deaf and hard of hearing population

Genetic testing holds great potential for preventing morbidities and mortalities for a number of diseases through early detection and effective intervention. As the number of genetic tests expand, so will public demand for these services. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate access to genetic testing and genetic services to ensure that all Canadians, including vulnerable groups, have equitable access to all forms of health care, in keeping with the mandate of the Canadian Health Act. The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature to determine if and how the Deaf community, as a vulnerable group, is at an increased risk of inequitable access to genetic services in Canada and to discuss how those who are deaf and hard of hearing are subject to the same risks. First, we define vulnerability and describe why the Deaf community, as a social group, can be considered a vulnerable group, followed by a description of the benefits of genetic testing. Second, we describe the barriers to accessing genetic testing, and how the d/Deaf and hard of hearing population experience additional barriers. Third, we examine the difficulties incorporating genetic testing into medical practice, and how this creates additional barriers to those already at risk. Finally, we discuss the steps necessary to promote equitable access to genetic testing among the d/Deaf and hard of hearing populations within Canada, and provide recommendations for further research in this topic area. Lastly, we comment on how barriers to genetic testing vary among the d/Deaf and hard of hearing is dependent upon the type of health care system available (whether public or private).

Effect of pre-test genetic counseling for deaf adults on knowledge of genetic testing

Empirical data on genetic counseling outcomes in the deaf population are needed to better serve this population. This study was an examination of genetics knowledge before and after culturally and linguistically appropriate pre-test genetic counseling in a diverse deaf adult sample. Individuals ≥18 years old with early-onset sensorineural deafness were offered connexin-26/30 testing and genetic counseling. Participants completed questionnaires containing 10 genetics knowledge items at baseline and following pre-test genetic counseling. The effects of genetic counseling, prior beliefs about etiology, and participant’s preferred language on genetics knowledge scores were assessed (n = 244). Pre-test genetic counseling (p = .0007), language (p < .0001), prior beliefs (p < .0001), and the interaction between counseling and beliefs (p = .035) were predictors of genetics knowledge. American Sign Language (ASL)-users and participants with “non-genetic/unknown” prior beliefs had lower knowledge scores than English-users and participants with “genetic” prior beliefs, respectively. Genetics knowledge improved after genetic counseling regardless of participants’ language; knowledge change was greater for the “non-genetic/unknown” beliefs group than the “genetic” beliefs group. ASL-users’ lower knowledge scores are consistent with evidence that ethnic and cultural minority groups have less genetics knowledge, perhaps from exposure and access disparities. Culturally and linguistically appropriate pre-test genetic counseling significantly improved deaf individuals’ genetics knowledge. Assessing deaf individuals’ prior beliefs is important for enhancing genetics knowledge.

Parental attitudes toward genetic testing for prelingual deafness in China

OBJECTIVE

Recent advances in molecular biology of hearing and deafness have made genetic testing an option for deaf individuals and their families. In China, DNA microarray and other genetic testing method has been applied to rapid genetic diagnosis of non-syndromic hearing loss. However, there is no information about the interests in such testing in China. The purpose of this study is to document the attitudes of parents with normal hearing who have one or more deaf children toward diagnostic, carrier, and prenatal genetic testing for deafness.

METHODS

A structured, self-completion questionnaire was given to delegates at a conference held at Hubei Rehabilitation Research Center for Deaf Children, Wuhan, China on March 3, 2010. Of 366 surveys distributed, 290 were completed and returned.

RESULTS

Ninety-four percent of the respondents had a positive attitude toward genetic testing. Seventy-two percent stated that they were interested in genetic testing of deaf child. Of the individuals who were interested in such testing, 69% would consider having prenatal genetic testing for deafness.

CONCLUSION

The present study provided evidence of a predominantly positive attitude toward genetics. Appropriate genetic counseling can help parents to understand the risk, benefits, and limitations of genetic testing for prelingual deafness.