AI-Inclusivity in Healthcare: Motivating an Institutional Epistemic Trust Perspective.

This paper motivates institutional epistemic trust as an important ethical consideration informing the responsible development and implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (or AI-inclusivity) in healthcare. Drawing on recent literature on epistemic trust and public trust in science, we start by examining the conditions under which we can have institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare systems and their members as providers of medical information and advice. In particular, we discuss that institutional epistemic trust in AI-inclusive healthcare depends, in part, on the reliability of AI-inclusive medical practices and programs, its knowledge and understanding among different stakeholders involved, its effect on epistemic and communicative duties and burdens on medical professionals and, finally, its interaction and alignment with the public's ethical values and interests as well as background sociopolitical conditions against which AI-inclusive healthcare systems are embedded. To assess the applicability of these conditions, we explore a recent proposal for AI-inclusivity within the Dutch Newborn Screening Program. In doing so, we illustrate the importance, scope, and potential challenges of fostering and maintaining institutional epistemic trust in a context where generating, assessing, and providing reliable and timely screening results for genetic risk is of high priority. Finally, to motivate the general relevance of our discussion and case study, we end with suggestions for strategies, interventions, and measures for AI-inclusivity in healthcare more widely.

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications.

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation.

Parent-reported phenotype data on chromosome 6 aberrations collected via an online questionnaire: data consistency and data availability.

BACKGROUND: Even with the introduction of new genetic techniques that enable accurate genomic characterization, knowledge about the phenotypic spectrum of rare chromosomal disorders is still limited, both in literature and existing databases. Yet this clinical information is of utmost importance for health professionals and the parents of children with rare diseases. Since existing databases are often hampered by the limited time and willingness of health professionals to input new data, we collected phenotype data directly from parents of children with a chromosome 6 disorder. These parents were reached via social media, and the information was collected via the online Chromosome 6 Questionnaire, which includes 115 main questions on congenital abnormalities, medical problems, behaviour, growth and development. METHODS: Here, we assess data consistency by comparing parent-reported phenotypes to phenotypes based on copies of medical files for the same individual (n = 20) and data availability by comparing the data available on specific characteristics reported by parents (n = 34) to data available in existing literature (n = 39). RESULTS: The reported answers to the main questions on phenotype characteristics were 85-95% consistent, and the consistency of answers to subsequent more detailed questions was 77-96%. For all but two main questions, significantly more data was collected from parents via the Chromosome 6 Questionnaire than was currently available in literature. For the topics developmental delay and brain abnormalities, no significant difference in the amount of available data was found. The only feature for which significantly more data was available in literature was a sub-question on the type of brain abnormality present. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to compare phenotype data collected directly from parents to data extracted from medical files on the same individuals. We found that the data was highly consistent, and phenotype data collected via the online Chromosome 6 Questionnaire resulted in more available information on most clinical characteristics when compared to phenotypes reported in literature reports thus far. We encourage active patient participation in rare disease research and have shown that parent-reported phenotypes are reliable and contribute to our knowledge of the phenotypic spectrum of rare chromosomal disorders.

Primary care professionals' views on population-based expanded carrier screening: an online focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) involves screening for multiple recessive diseases offered to all couples considering a pregnancy or during pregnancy. Previous research indicates that in some countries primary care professionals are perceived as suitable providers for ECS. However, little is known about their perspectives. We therefore aimed to explore primary care professionals' views on population-based ECS. METHODS: Four online focus groups with 14 general practitioners (GPs) and 16 community midwives were conducted in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Our findings highlight various perspectives on the desirability of population-based ECS. Participants agreed that ECS could enhance reproductive autonomy and thereby prevent suffering of the child and/or parents. However, they also raised several ethical, societal, and psychological concerns, including a tendency towards a perfect society, stigmatization, unequal access to screening and negative psychosocial consequences. Participants believed that provision of population-based ECS would be feasible if prerequisites regarding training and reimbursement for providers would be fulfilled. most GPs considered themselves less suitable or capable of providing ECS, in contrast to midwives who did consider themselves suitable. Nevertheless, participants believed that, if implemented, ECS should be offered in primary care or by public health services rather than as hospital-based specialized care, because they believed a primary care ECS offer increases access in terms of time and location. CONCLUSIONS: While participants believed that an ECS offer would be feasible, they questioned its desirability and priority. Studies on the desirability and feasibility of population-based ECS offered in primary care or public health settings are needed.

Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.

Carrier screening aims to identify couples at risk of conceiving children with a recessive condition. Until recently, carrier screening was primarily offered ancestry-based. Technological advances now facilitate expanded universal carrier screening (EUCS). This scoping review aimed to map EUCS's potential societal implications based on both theoretical studies and empirical evidence. To this aim, we performed a CoCites search to find relevant articles, including articles describing carrier screening for at-risk populations, based on five selected query articles. Forty articles were included. Three main potential societal implications were identified: (1) unwanted medicalization, (2) stigmatization and discrimination of carriers and people affected with the conditions screened and (3) challenges in achieving equitable access. Within these themes, potential positive implications are reduction of ethnic stigmatization in ancestry-based offers and increased equity. Potential negative implications are reinforcement of disability-based stigmatization, less possibility for developing expertise in healthcare and societal pressure to partake in screening. Empirical evidence on all these implications is however scarce. In conclusion, both positive and negative potential societal implications of implementing EUCS, primarily theoretical, were identified, even in at-risk groups where evidence is mostly lacking. Empirical research in EUCS pilots is needed to identify which societal implications are likely to occur and therefore should be overcome when implementing EUCS.

Parental experiences of rapid exome sequencing in cases with major ultrasound anomalies during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Adding rapid exome sequencing (rES) to conventional genetic tests improves the diagnostic yield of pregnancies showing ultrasound abnormalities but also carries a higher chance of unsolicited findings. We evaluated how rES, including pre- and post-test counseling, was experienced by parents investigating its impact on decision-making and experienced levels of anxiety. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted. Participating couples (n = 46) were asked to fill in two surveys (pre-test and post-test counseling) and 11 couples were approached for an additional interview. RESULTS: All couples accepted the rES test-offer with the most important reason for testing emphasizing their hope of finding an underlying diagnosis that would aid decision-making. The actual impact on decision-making was low, however, since most parents decided to terminate the pregnancy based on the major and multiple fetal ultrasound anomalies and did not wait for their rES results. Anxiety was elevated for most participants and decreased over time. CONCLUSION: Major congenital anomalies detected on ultrasound seem to have more impact on prenatal parental decision-making and anxiety then the offer and results of rES. However, the impact of rES on reproductive decision-making and experienced anxiety requires further investigation, especially in pregnancies where less (severe) fetal anomalies are detected on ultrasound.

Couple-based expanded carrier screening provided by general practitioners to couples in the Dutch general population: psychological outcomes and reproductive intentions.

PURPOSE: The aim of expanded preconception carrier screening (ECS) is to inform any couple wishing to conceive about their chances of having children with severe autosomal or X-linked recessive conditions. Responsible implementation of ECS as reproductive genetic screening in routine care requires assessment of benefits and harms. We examined the psychological outcomes of couple-based ECS for 50 autosomal recessive (AR) conditions provided by general practitioners (GPs) to couples from the Dutch general population. METHODS: Dutch GPs invited 4,295 women aged 18-40. We examined anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI-6), worry, decisional conflict (DCS) over time in participants declining GP counseling or attending GP counseling with/without testing. RESULTS: One hundred ninety couples participated; 130 attended counseling, of whom 117 proceeded with testing. No carrier couples were identified. Before counseling, worry (median 6.0) and anxiety (mean 30-34) were low and lower than the population reference (36.4), although some individuals reported increased anxiety or worry. At follow-up, test acceptors reported less anxiety than test decliners (mean 29 vs. 35); differences in anxiety after testing compared to before counseling were not meaningful. Most participants (90%) were satisfied with their decision (not) to undergo testing. CONCLUSION: Some individuals reported temporarily clinically relevant distress. Overall, the psychological outcomes are acceptable and no barrier to population-wide implementation.

Practical Barriers and Facilitators Experienced by Patients, Pharmacists and Physicians to the Implementation of Pharmacogenomic Screening in Dutch Outpatient Hospital Care-An Explorative Pilot Study.

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) can provide optimized treatment to individual patients while potentially reducing healthcare costs. However, widespread implementation remains absent. We performed a pilot study of PGx screening in Dutch outpatient hospital care to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementation experienced by patients (n = 165), pharmacists (n = 58) and physicians (n = 21). Our results indeed suggest that the current practical experience of healthcare practitioners with PGx is limited, that proper education is necessary, that patients want to know the exact implications of the results, that healthcare practitioners heavily rely on their computer systems, that healthcare practitioners encounter practical problems in the systems used, and a new barrier was identified, namely that there is an unclear allocation of responsibilities between healthcare practitioners about who should discuss PGx with patients and apply PGx results in healthcare. We observed a positive attitude toward PGx among all the stakeholders in our study, and among patients, this was independent of the occurrence of drug-gene interactions during their treatment. Facilitators included the availability of and adherence to Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group guidelines. While clinical decision support (CDS) is available and valued in our medical center, the lack of availability of CDS may be an important barrier within Dutch healthcare in general.

Cognitive and affective outcomes of genetic counselling in the Netherlands at group and individual level: a personalized approach seems necessary.

We performed a large outcome study at group and individual level in which the goals of genetic counselling were operationalized into cognitive and affective outcomes: empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety. We then examined which socio-demographic and clinical variables were associated with changes in these outcomes. Data came from 1479 counselees who completed questionnaires (GCOS-18, PPC and STAI) at three time points: before the start of genetic counselling, after the first consultation and after the results of genetic counselling were disclosed. Results showed that at group level empowerment, perceived personal control and anxiety improved significantly after the whole genetic counselling process. Effect-sizes were medium for empowerment and small for the other outcomes. At individual level, 48% of counselees improved in empowerment, 21% in perceived personal control and 17% in anxiety. Around 10% of counselees worsened on all outcomes. Only 'reason for referral' and 'genetic test result' were significantly associated with changes in outcomes. This study demonstrated improvements among counselees in cognitive and affective outcomes after genetic counselling at group level. However, our results also suggest that there are opportunities for improvement at individual level, as many counselees remained stable and some even worsened on all outcomes. Routine outcome monitoring could help to explore the needs of counselees and could help to identify counselees who worsen.

GP-provided couple-based expanded preconception carrier screening in the Dutch general population: who accepts the test-offer and why?

Next generation sequencing has enabled fast and relatively inexpensive expanded carrier screening (ECS) that can inform couples' reproductive decisions before conception and during pregnancy. We previously showed that a couple-based approach to ECS for autosomal recessive (AR) conditions was acceptable and feasible for both health care professionals and the non-pregnant target population in the Netherlands. This paper describes the acceptance of this free test-offer of preconception ECS for 50 severe conditions, the characteristics of test-offer acceptors and decliners, their views on couple-based ECS and reasons for accepting or declining the test-offer. We used a survey that included self-rated health, intention to accept the test-offer, barriers to test-participation and arguments for and against test-participation. Fifteen percent of the expected target population-couples potentially planning a pregnancy-attended pre-test counselling and 90% of these couples proceeded with testing. Test-offer acceptors and decliners differed in their reproductive characteristics (e.g. how soon they wanted to conceive), educational level and stated barriers to test-participation. Sparing a child a life with a severe genetic condition was the most important reason to accept ECS. The most important reason for declining was that the test-result would not affect participants' reproductive decisions. Our results demonstrate that previously uninformed couples of reproductive age, albeit a selective part, were interested in and chose to have couple-based ECS. Alleviating practical barriers, which prevented some interested couples from participating, is recommended before nationwide implementation.

Reinterpretation, reclassification, and its downstream effects: challenges for clinical laboratory geneticists.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the amount of genomic data produced in clinical genetics services has increased significantly due to the advent of next-generation sequencing. This influx of genomic information leads to continuous changes in knowledge on how genetic variants relate to hereditary disease. These changes can have important consequences for patients who have had genetic testing in the past, as new information may affect their clinical management. When and how patients should be recontacted after new genetic information becomes available has been investigated extensively. However, the issue of how to handle the changing nature of genetic information remains underexplored in a laboratory setting, despite it being the first stage at which changes in genetic data are identified and managed. METHODS: The authors organized a 7-day online focus group discussion. Fifteen clinical laboratory geneticists took part. All (nine) Dutch clinical molecular genetics diagnostic laboratories were represented. RESULTS: Laboratories in our study reinterpret genetic variants reactively, e.g. at the request of a clinician or following identification of a previously classified variant in a new patient. Participants currently deemed active, periodic reinterpretation to be unfeasible and opinions differed on whether it is desirable, particularly regarding patient autonomy and the main responsibilities of the laboratory. The efficacy of reinterpretation was questioned in the presence of other strategies, such as reanalysis and resequencing of DNA. Despite absence of formal policy regarding when to issue a new report for clinicians due to reclassified genetic data, participants indicated similar practice across all laboratories. However, practice differed significantly between laboratory geneticists regarding the reporting of VUS reclassifications. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, the authors formulated five challenges needing to be addressed in future laboratory guidelines: 1. Should active reinterpretation of variants be conducted by the laboratory as a routine practice? 2. How does reinterpretation initiated by the laboratory relate to patient expectations and consent? 3. When should reinterpreted data be considered clinically significant and communicated from laboratory to clinician? 4. Should reinterpretation, reanalysis or a new test be conducted? 5. How are reclassifications perceived and how might this affect laboratory practice?

Informing relatives at risk of inherited cardiac conditions: experiences and attitudes of healthcare professionals and counselees.

Inherited cardiac conditions (ICCs) can lead to sudden cardiac death at young age, even without previous symptoms, yet often remain undetected. To prevent sudden cardiac death, cardiac monitoring and/or predictive DNA testing is advised for at-risk relatives. Probands in whom a causal variant is detected are asked to inform their relatives about the possibility of testing, often supported by a family letter. This qualitative study investigates experiences with and attitudes toward this family-mediated approach in ICCs and explores whether and how improvements can be made. Two online focus groups were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals (HCPs) from various disciplines, as were 25 face-to-face semi-structured interviews with counselees (10 probands; 15 relatives). Data were analysed by two researchers independently using a thematic approach. Participants, both HCPs and counselees, preferred that probands inform relatives about genetic risks in ICCs, but both groups struggled with the dependency on and burden on probands to inform their relatives. To overcome this, HCPs do see a more active role for themselves in informing relatives, but prefer uniformity in procedures in order to maintain their workload. Counselees, on the other hand, prefer a tailored information provision strategy adjusted to family dynamics and the personality characteristics of relatives. In conclusion, although it is generally preferred that probands inform relatives themselves, a more active role of HCPs could be considered to overcome the dependency and burden on probands. Further research is needed to study how HCPs can engage more actively in informing at-risk relatives in current clinical genetic practise.

Expanded carrier screening for autosomal recessive conditions in health care: Arguments for a couple-based approach and examination of couples' views.

BACKGROUND: Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is aimed at detecting carrier states for autosomal recessive (AR) or X-linked conditions in couples from the general population planning a pregnancy. ECS is currently usually offered on an individual basis despite the fact that, for AR conditions, only carrier couples are at risk of affected offspring. In this paper, we present a couple-based ECS test-offer for AR conditions, where results are offered as couple-results only, and describe how couples view such an offer. METHODS AND RESULTS: An online survey covering attitudes, perceived difficulty, and intention to take up couple-based ECS was used to examine couples' views. Results show that in 76% of the participating couples there is no objection at all towards receiving couple-results only. Most couples display similar views. Observed discrepancies usually involved one of the couple members having a positive view, whilst the other was neutral. Although views stayed strikingly stable after discussion, the partner's opinion was regarded as important in deciding whether or not to have testing. CONCLUSION: This study shows that most couples do not object to receiving couple rather than individual ECS results, have similar views towards the offer, and are able to discuss differences in views and intentions.

Feasibility of couple-based expanded carrier screening offered by general practitioners.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) aims to inform couples' reproductive choice, preferably before conception. As part of an implementation study in which trained general practitioners (GPs) offered a population-based ECS couple-test, we evaluated the feasibility of the test-offer and degree of participant informed choice (IC). Trained GPs from nine practices in the northern Netherlands invited 4295 female patients aged 18-40 to take part in couple-based ECS. Inclusion criteria were having a male partner, planning for children and not being pregnant. We evaluated the feasibility of the organizational aspects, GP competence and the content of the pre-test counselling. Participant satisfaction, evaluation of pre-test counselling and degree of IC were measured using a longitudinal survey. We explored GP experiences and their views on future implementation through semi-structured interviews. 130 consultations took place. All participating GPs were assessed by genetic professionals to be competent to conduct pre-test counselling. Most (63/108 (58%)) consultations took place within the planned 20 min (median 20, IQR 18-28). GPs considered couples' prior knowledge level an important determinant of consultation length. 91% of patients were (very) satisfied with the GP counselling. After pre-test counselling, 231/237(97%) participants had sufficient knowledge and 206/231(88%) had a positive attitude and proceeded with testing. Our pilot demonstrates that offering couple-based ECS through trained and motivated GPs is feasible. Future large-scale implementation requires a well-informed general public and a discussion about appropriate reimbursement for GPs and health care coverage for couples. Providing (more) test information pre-appointment may help reduce average consultation time.

A validated PROM in genetic counselling: the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale.

Patient empowerment has been identified as a key outcome goal in genetic counselling, and a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) has been developed to measure empowerment in genetic services: the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale (GCOS). Here we validate the GCOS for a large and diverse Dutch study sample of 2194 patients referred to two clinical genetic centres for counselling about a wide range of conditions (heart disease, neurological disorders, cancer, congenital syndromes, intellectual disability and prenatal pathology). Our results suggest that the GCOS consists of a hierarchical 6-factor structure, with a main scale for empowerment and six subscales: uncertainty about heredity, hope, negative emotions, knowledge about the condition, knowledge about genetic services and uncertainty about the treatment. Six of the original 24 GCOS items were removed due to low factor loadings and small inter-item correlations. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the main scale and most subscales were satisfactory. Convergent validity was confirmed by moderate positive and moderate/strong negative associations between the GCOS main scale and other validated outcome measures. Responsiveness was comparable to that of other validated outcome measures. We saw significant improvement in the GCOS main scale and all the subscales after the first genetic counselling session. This study contributes to the international validation process of the GCOS, with the ultimate goal of using this instrument as a PROM, with empowerment as an outcome measure, to evaluate and improve the quality of genetic counselling in various clinical genetics settings.

The phenotypic spectrum of proximal 6q deletions based on a large cohort derived from social media and literature reports.

Proximal 6q (6q11-q15) deletions are extremely rare and little is known about their phenotypic consequences. Since parents and caregivers now use social media to seek information on rare disorders, the Chromosome 6 Project has successfully collaborated with a Facebook group to collect data on individuals worldwide. Here we describe a cohort of 20 newly identified individuals and 25 literature cases with a proximal 6q deletion. Microarray results and phenotype data were reported directly by parents via a multilingual online questionnaire. This led to phenotype descriptions for five subregions of proximal 6q deletions; comparing the subgroups revealed that 6q11q14.1 deletions presented less severe clinical characteristics than 6q14.2q15 deletions. Gastroesophageal reflux, tracheo/laryngo/bronchomalacia, congenital heart defects, cerebral defects, seizures, and vision and respiratory problems were predominant in those with 6q14.2q15 deletions. Problems related to connective tissue (hypermobility, hernias and foot deformities) were predominantly seen in deletions including the COL12A1 gene (6q13). Congenital heart defects could be linked to deletions of MAP3K7 (6q15) or TBX18 (6q14.3). We further discuss the role of ten genes known or assumed to be related to developmental delay and/or autism (BAI3, RIMS1, KCNQ5, HTR1B, PHIP, SYNCRIP, HTR1E, ZNF292, AKIRIN2 and EPHA7). The most influential gene on the neurodevelopmental phenotype seems to be SYNCRIP (6q14.3), while deletions that include more than two of these genes led to more severe developmental delay. We demonstrate that approaching individuals via social media and collecting data directly from parents is a successful strategy, resulting in better information to counsel families.

Expanded carrier screening: what determines intended participation and can this be influenced by message framing and narrative information?

Next-generation sequencing enabled us to create a population-based expanded carrier screening (ECS) test that simultaneously tests for 50 serious autosomal recessive diseases. Before offering this test universally, we wanted to know what factors are related to intended participation and how the general public can be informed about the test without being influenced in their intention to participate. We studied this by measuring to what extent 'message framing' and 'narrative information' can influence people's intended participation. Data were collected by means of an online survey of 504 potential users, and the factors examined were based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and on previous research on intended participation in preconception carrier screening. Message framing was manipulated by explaining the risk of couple carriership in different ways, while narrative information was provided to only half of the respondents. The factors most positively related to intended participation were perceiving benefits of the screening, having a positive attitude towards the screening, having no religion, having an actual child wish and experiencing the choice to participate as easy. Perceived benefits and a positive attitude were most influential factors by far. Message framing and narrative information had no significant effect on intended participation, reinforcing that message framing and narrative information can help to inform the general public about ECS without influencing their intended participation. Future research should study if the importance of perceived benefits and a positive attitude can be replicated when other factors are included and when actual participation is measured instead of intended participation.

Predictive Genetic Testing of Children for Adult-Onset Conditions: Negotiating Requests with Parents.

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) regularly face requests from parents for predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions. Little is known about how HCPs handle these test requests, given that guidelines recommend such testing is deferred to adulthood unless there is medical benefit to testing before that time. Our study explored the process of decision-making between HCPs and parents. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 HCPs in 8 regional genetic services across the UK, and data were thematically analysed. We found that instead of saying 'yes' or 'no' to such requests, many HCPs framed the consultation as an opportunity to negotiate the optimal time of testing. This, they argued, facilitates parents' considered decision-making, since parents' eventual decisions after requesting a test was often to defer testing their child. In cases where parents' requests remained a sustained wish, most HCPs said they would agree to test, concluding that not testing would not serve the child's wider best interest. As a strategy for determining the child's best interest and for facilitating shared decision-making, we recommend that HCPs re-frame requests for testing from parents as a discussion about the optimal time of testing for adult-onset disease.

Population-based preconception carrier screening: how potential users from the general population view a test for 50 serious diseases.

With the increased international focus on personalized health care and preventive medicine, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has substantially expanded the options for carrier screening of serious, recessively inherited diseases. NGS screening tests not only offer reproductive options not previously available to couples, but they may also ultimately reduce the number of children born with devastating disorders. To date, preconception carrier screening (PCS) has largely targeted single diseases such as cystic fibrosis, but NGS allows the testing of many genes or diseases simultaneously. We have developed an expanded NGS PCS test for couples; simultaneously it covers 50 very serious, early-onset, autosomal recessive diseases that are untreatable. This is the first, noncommercial, population-based, expanded PCS test to be offered prospectively to couples in a health-care setting in Europe. So far, little is known about how potential users view such a PCS test. We therefore performed an online survey in 2014 among 500 people from the target population in the Netherlands. We enquired about their intention to take an expanded PCS test if one was offered, and through which provider they would like to see it offered. One-third of the respondents said they would take such a test were it to be offered. The majority (44%) preferred the test to be offered via their general practitioner (GP) and 58% would be willing to pay for the test, with a median cost of [euro ]75. Our next step is to perform an implementation study in which this PCS test will be provided via selected GPs in the Northern Netherlands.

Assessment and Treatment of Pain during Treatment of Buruli Ulcer.

BACKGROUND: Buruli ulcer (BU) is described as a relatively painless condition; however clinical observations reveal that patients do experience pain during their treatment. Knowledge on current pain assessment and treatment in BU is necessary to develop and implement a future guideline on pain management in BU. METHODOLOGY: A mixed methods approach was used, consisting of information retrieved from medical records on prescribed pain medication from Ghana and Benin, and semi-structured interviews with health care personnel (HCP) from Ghana on pain perceptions, assessment and treatment. Medical records (n = 149) of patients treated between 2008 and 2012 were collected between November 2012 and August 2013. Interviews (n = 11) were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and qualitatively analyzed. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In 113 (84%) of the 135 included records, pain medication, mostly simple analgesics, was prescribed. In 48% of the prescriptions, an indication was not documented. HCP reported that advanced BU could be painful, especially after wound care and after a skin graft. They reported not be trained in the assessment of mild pain. Pain recognition was perceived as difficult, as patients were said to suppress or to exaggerate pain, and to have different expectations regarding acceptable pain levels. HCP reported a fear of side effects of pain medication, shortage and irregularities in the supply of pain medication, and time constraints among medical doctors for pain management. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals perceived BU disease as potentially painful, and predominantly focused on severe pain. Our study suggests that pain in BU deserves attention and should be integrated in current treatment.