Direct to consumer testing in reproductive contexts--should health professionals be concerned?

The Landscape of Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing in Reproductive Health Contexts: An Analytical Framework of Stakeholders and Their Competing Motivations

We propose a theoretical framework that identifies (a) the different categories of stakeholders and (b) the normative values that drive their attitudes toward direct-to-consumer genetic testing, with an emphasis on the reproductive health contexts. We conducted a literature search using varied combinations of search terms, including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, decision-making, reproductive health, and policy. Using a grounded theory approach to existing literature and in combination with a narrative review, we present a systematic framework of five categories of stakeholders (i.e., genome-driven stakeholders, industry-driven stakeholders, history-driven stakeholders, value-driven stakeholders, and social justice-driven stakeholders) that shape the public's discourse. Moving beyond the dialectical ethics that have governed the public discourse, we also identify the normative values and interests that motivate different stakeholders' attitudes and decision-making through theoretical sampling under the grounded theory. We investigate the competing and conflicting values within the same category of stakeholders. For example, despite being industry-driven stakeholders, medical professionals' attitudes are driven by concerns about standards of care; in contrast, health insurance companies' concerns are centered on profit. We further explore the tensions between these stakeholders that impact their strategic alliances and pose challenges to the practices of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Finally, we examine how these stakeholders and their corresponding values may shape future development and policies of direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the context of reproductive health.

First French study relative to preconception genetic testing: 1500 general population participants' opinion

Background

Until very recently, preconception genetic testing was only conducted in particular communities, ethnic groups or families for which an increased risk of genetic disease was identified. To detect in general population a risk for a couple to have a child affected by a rare, recessive or X-linked, genetic disease, carrier screening is proposed in several countries. We aimed to determine the current public opinion relative to this approach in France, using either a printed or web-based questionnaire.

Results

Among the 1568 participants, 91% are favorable to preconception genetic tests and 57% declare to be willing to have the screening if the latter is available. A medical prescription by a family doctor or a gynecologist would be the best way to propose the test for 73%, with a reimbursement from the social security insurance. However, 19% declare not to be willing to use the test because of their ethic or moral convictions, and the fear that the outcome would question the pregnancy. Otherwise, most participants consider that the test is a medical progress despite the risk of an increased medicalization of the pregnancy.

Conclusion

This first study in France highlights a global favorable opinion for the preconception genetic carrier testing under a medical prescription and a reimbursement by social security insurance. Our results emphasize as well the complex concerns underpinned by the use of this screening strategy. Therefore, the ethical issues related to these tests include the risk of eugenic drift mentioned by more than half of the participants.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-021-01754-z.

Click yes to consent: Acceptability of incorporating informed consent into an internet-based testing program for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections

BACKGROUND

Autonomous use of online health care services without interaction with a health care provider challenges existing models for achieving informed consent (IC); current examinations of this issue have focused on commercial direct-to-consumer genetic testing. As IC is integral to publicly funded clinical testing services, we incorporated pre-test concepts necessary for IC in GetCheckedOnline (GCO), British Columbia's online sexually transmitted and blood-borne infection (STBBI) testing service.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the acceptability of this IC step and its design options among potential users during usability testing of GCO.

METHODS

English-speaking participants≥19years were recruited from Craigslist and among provincial STI clinic clients for usability testing of an early version of GCO, which included a consent webpage presenting 8 pre-test statements for review prior to completing testing. Participants were interviewed regarding their acceptability, perceptions, and understanding of the consent page; transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We conducted 13 interviews (9 males, 4 females; 9 self-identified as heterosexual; all had previously tested for STBBI). We identified three main themes: i) the meaning of IC (consent page viewed as important and for protection of individual and organization; participants demonstrated varying understandings of specific components); ii) the impact of previous experience on understanding IC (participants understood difference between online and in-person testing; IC concepts were better understood by participants with more testing experience); iii) the role of website design on achieving IC (design of page to disrupt speedy click-throughs was valued and demonstrated seriousness of the consent page).

CONCLUSIONS

Our careful attention to both content and design of the consent page of GCO was highly valued by potential users of the service, and effective in disrupting routinization of consent on websites. We argue that principles of IC apply equally in online self-testing programs as in clinical practice, and can be effectively achieved without detracting from the user experience.

Attitudes of European Geneticists Regarding Expanded Carrier Screening

OBJECTIVE

To explore attitudes of clinical and molecular geneticists about the implementation of multi-disease or expanded carrier screening (ECS) for monogenic recessive disorders.

DESIGN

Qualitative; semistructured interviews.

SETTING

In person or via Skype. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim.

PARTICIPANTS

European clinical and molecular geneticists with expertise in carrier screening (N = 16).

METHODS

Inductive content analysis was used to identify common content categories in the data.

RESULTS

Participants recognized important benefits of ECS, but they also identified major challenges, including limited benefit of ECS for most couples in the general population, lack of knowledge on carrier screening among nongenetic health care providers and the general public, potential negative implications of ECS for society, and limited economic resources. Participants favored an evidence-based approach to the implementation of population-wide ECS and were reluctant to actively offer ECS in the absence of demonstrable benefits. However, there was a consensus among the participants that ECS should be made available to couples who request the test. In addition, they believed ECS could be routinely offered to all people who use assisted reproduction.

CONCLUSION

Although a limited ECS offer is practical, it also raises concerns over equality in access to screening. A comprehensive risk-benefit analysis is needed to determine the desirability of systematic population-wide ECS.

Is there a Role for Genetic Counselors in Prenatal Paternity Testing? - an Assessment Based on Audit of 13 years of Clinical Experience in South Australia

The role of genetic counselors in prenatal paternity testing has not been widely studied in the genetic counseling literature. In South Australia, the genetic counselors of the State's public sector clinical genetics service are the primary contact point for women seeking information and testing, also coordinating the testing process. This has provided the opportunity to review all prenatal paternity testing performed in the State over a 13 year period and to consider the role played by the genetic counselor. We explored the reasons why women requested prenatal paternity testing and whether the genetic counselor was an appropriate health professional to facilitate this testing for women. The study had two parts, an audit of the clinical genetics files of 160 women who requested prenatal paternity testing between March 2001 and March 2014, and qualitative interviews of genetic counselors, clinical geneticists, obstetricians and social workers with involvement in this area. The audit determined that in 69.9 % of cases the long-term partner was the father of the pregnancy, for 23.7 % the short-term or other partner was the father and for 6.4 % the paternity results were not known by the genetic counselor. For 45.5 % of women whose long-term partner was excluded as the father, the women chose to have a termination of pregnancy. The results of the qualitative interviews yielded five major themes: accessibility of testing, role of the genetic counselor, social and relationship issues, decision making in pregnancy and emotional issues. We conclude that the genetic counselor is an appropriate health professional to facilitate prenatal paternity testing. Genetic counselors did not view their role as significantly different from a request for prenatal testing for another indication.