Pregnant women's informational needs prior to decisions about prenatal diagnosis for chromosomal anomalies-A Q methodological study.

OBJECTIVE: To study pregnant women's subjective viewpoints on what is important when receiving information prior to decision-making regarding prenatal testing for chromosomal anomalies. METHOD: Data were collected using Q methodology. During January 2020-October 2021, 45 pregnant women in Sweden completed a 50-item Q sort. Statements regarding what is important when receiving information about prenatal screening and diagnosis were prioritized through ranking in a fixed sorting grid on an 11-point scale, from "most important" to "least important." Socio-demographics and coping styles were surveyed through questionnaires. RESULTS: Three groups represented different viewpoints on what pregnant women consider important when receiving information about prenatal screening and diagnosis. Factor 1: Stepwise information and decision-making: viewing information and decision-making as a step-by-step process. Factor 2: Decision-making as a continuous process based on couple autonomy: Striving for an informed decision as a couple about tests, test results and conditions screened. Factor 3: As much information as early as possible-the importance of personal autonomy in decision-making: Prioritizing autonomous decision-making based on non-directive information early in the pregnancy. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the complexities involved when providing information. As shown by the differing viewpoints in this study, pregnant women's informational needs differ, making individual and personalized information preferable.

Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data?

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.

Return of genomic results does not motivate intent to participate in research for all: Perspectives across 22 countries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally. METHODS: We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States. CONCLUSION: There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

High risk-What's next? A survey study on decisional conflict, regret, and satisfaction among high-risk pregnant women making choices about further prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate decision making among pregnant women when choosing between noninvasive prenatal testing, invasive testing, or no further testing. METHODS: Women with a high-risk result from the first trimester screening were invited to fill in two online questionnaires at gestational age 12 to 14 (Q1) and 24 weeks (Q2). The scales used were Decisional Conflict and Regret Scales, Satisfaction with genetic Counselling Scale, and Health-Relevant Personality Inventory. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-nine women agreed to participate, and the response rates were 76% on Q1 and 88% on Q2. A percentage of 75.4% chose an invasive test, 23.8% chose noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), 0.4% chose no further testing, and 0.4% had both NIPT and invasive testing. Among all participants, 13.3% had a high level of decisional conflict. We found that choosing NIPT was associated with a high decisional conflict (p = 0.013), receiving genetic counselling the same day was associated with a high decisional conflict (p = 0.039), and a high satisfaction with the genetic counselling was associated with low decisional conflict (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the personality subtrait "alexithymia" was associated with low decisional conflict (p = 0.043). There was a significant association between high decisional conflict and later decisional regret (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: We present evidence that satisfaction with and timing of counselling are important factors to limit decisional conflict. Interestingly, women choosing NIPT had more decisional conflict than women choosing invasive testing.

Lack of guidelines and translational knowledge is hindering the implementation of psychiatric genetic counseling and testing within Europe - A multi-professional survey study.

Genetic research has identified a large number of genetic variants, both rare and common, underlying neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) and major psychiatric disorders. Currently, these findings are being translated into clinical practice. However, there is a lack of knowledge and guidelines for psychiatric genetic testing (PsychGT) and genetic counseling (PsychGC). The European Union-funded COST action EnGagE (CA17130) network was started to investigate the current implementation status of PsychGT and PsychGC across 35 participating European countries. Here, we present the results of a pan-European online survey in which we gathered the opinions, knowledge, and practices of a self-selected sample of professionals involved/interested in the field. We received answers from 181 respondents. The three main occupational categories were genetic counselor (21.0%), clinical geneticist (24.9%), and researcher (25.4%). Of all 181 respondents, 106 provide GC for any psychiatric disorder or NDD, corresponding to 58.6% of the whole group ranging from 43.2% in Central Eastern Europe to 66.1% in Western Europe. Overall, 65.2% of the respondents reported that genetic testing is offered to individuals with NDD, and 26.5% indicated the same for individuals with major psychiatric disorders. Only 22.1% of the respondents indicated that they have guidelines for PsychGT. Pharmacogenetic testing actionable for psychiatric disorders was offered by 15%. Interestingly, when genetic tests are fully covered by national health insurance, more genetic testing is provided for individuals with NDD but not those with major psychiatric disorders. Our qualitative analyses of responses highlight the lack of guidelines and knowledge on utilizing and using genetic tests and education and training as the major obstacles to implementation. Indeed, the existence of psychiatric genetic training courses was confirmed by only 11.6% of respondents. The question on the relevance of up-to-date education and training in psychiatric genetics on everyday related practice was highly relevant. We provide evidence that PsychGC and PsychGT are already in use across European countries, but there is a lack of guidelines and education. Harmonization of practice and development of guidelines for genetic counseling, testing, and training professionals would improve equality and access to quality care for individuals with psychiatric disorders within Europe.

Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries.

BACKGROUND: Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this. METHODS: We analyse the 'Your DNA, Your Say' online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle- and high-income countries, gathered in 15 languages. We examine how participants perceived the relative value of measures to demonstrate the trustworthiness of those using donated DNA and/or medical information. We examine between-country variation and present a consolidated ranking of measures. RESULTS: Providing transparent information about who will benefit from data access was the most important measure to increase trust, endorsed by more than 50% of participants across 20 of 22 countries. It was followed by the option to withdraw data and transparency about who is using data and why. Variation was found for the importance of measures, notably information about sanctions for misuse of data-endorsed by 5% in India but almost 60% in Japan. A clustering analysis suggests alignment between some countries in the assessment of specific measures, such as the UK and Canada, Spain and Mexico and Portugal and Brazil. China and Russia are less closely aligned with other countries in terms of the value of the measures presented. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of transparency about data use and about the goals and potential benefits associated with data sharing, including to whom such benefits accrue. They show that members of the public value knowing what benefits accrue from the use of data. The study highlights the importance of locally sensitive measures to increase trust as genomic data sharing continues globally.

Developing a national certification pathway for genetic counselors in Sweden-a short report.

There is no Master's level education for genetic counseling in Sweden, meaning that genetic counselor professionals have very different backgrounds. Hence, there is a need to harmonize the quality of genetic counseling and introduce standards for practice. The Swedish Society for Genetic Counselors and the Swedish Society of Medical Genetics and Genomics collaborated to determine professional requirements and a career pathway, defining three vocational levels within the genetic counselor profession. We report here an individual educational pathway leading up to eligibility for certification as a genetic counselor in Sweden.

The Global State of the Genetic Counseling Profession.

The profession of genetic counseling (also called genetic counselling in many countries) began nearly 50 years ago in the United States, and has grown internationally in the past 30 years. While there have been many papers describing the profession of genetic counseling in individual countries or regions, data remains incomplete and has been published in diverse journals with limited access. As a result of the 2016 Transnational Alliance of Genetic Counseling (TAGC) conference in Barcelona, Spain, and the 2017 World Congress of Genetic Counselling in the UK, we endeavor to describe as fully as possible the global state of genetic counseling as a profession. We estimate that in 2018 there are nearly 7000 genetic counselors with the profession established or developing in no less than 28 countries.