Parents’ perceptions of the utility of genetic testing in the NICU

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Katharine Press Callahan , Rebecca Mueller , Steven Joffe , Cara Skraban , Nancy B. Spinner , Karen Crew , Justin Clapp , David Munson , Chris Feudtner
{"title":"Parents’ perceptions of the utility of genetic testing in the NICU","authors":"Katharine Press Callahan ,&nbsp;Rebecca Mueller ,&nbsp;Steven Joffe ,&nbsp;Cara Skraban ,&nbsp;Nancy B. Spinner ,&nbsp;Karen Crew ,&nbsp;Justin Clapp ,&nbsp;David Munson ,&nbsp;Chris Feudtner","doi":"10.1016/j.gim.2025.101393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Although several studies have evaluated the perspectives of parents in the neonatal intensive care unit on the utility of genetic testing in a research context and concluded with a positive appraisal, some data point to more varied perceptions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Semistructured interviews were conducted to elicit parental beliefs about the ways in which clinical (nonresearch) genetic testing could be both helpful and harmful.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We interviewed 43 parents of 36 neonates who were recommended and either accepted or declined to participate in clinical genetic testing. Parents described 5 types of problems they believed genetic information may address, what we term problem-solving contexts: treatment, coping, parenting, prognostic, and existential contexts. Most parents consider multiple problem-solving contexts when assessing benefits, which frequently results in ambivalence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Parents in the neonatal intensive care unit appear to be more ambivalent about the utility of genetic information than has been reflected in most recent studies. This discrepancy is likely related to our sample population, clinical rather than research methodology, which encouraged parents to discuss contexts beyond the medical field. Our findings suggest that informed pretest consent discussions and posttest counseling should encourage parents to discuss multiple problem-solving contexts. Researchers should also find ways to incorporate multiple contexts and diverse perspectives into their utility measures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12717,"journal":{"name":"Genetics in Medicine","volume":"27 6","pages":"Article 101393"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360025000401","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Although several studies have evaluated the perspectives of parents in the neonatal intensive care unit on the utility of genetic testing in a research context and concluded with a positive appraisal, some data point to more varied perceptions.

Methods

Semistructured interviews were conducted to elicit parental beliefs about the ways in which clinical (nonresearch) genetic testing could be both helpful and harmful.

Results

We interviewed 43 parents of 36 neonates who were recommended and either accepted or declined to participate in clinical genetic testing. Parents described 5 types of problems they believed genetic information may address, what we term problem-solving contexts: treatment, coping, parenting, prognostic, and existential contexts. Most parents consider multiple problem-solving contexts when assessing benefits, which frequently results in ambivalence.

Conclusion

Parents in the neonatal intensive care unit appear to be more ambivalent about the utility of genetic information than has been reflected in most recent studies. This discrepancy is likely related to our sample population, clinical rather than research methodology, which encouraged parents to discuss contexts beyond the medical field. Our findings suggest that informed pretest consent discussions and posttest counseling should encourage parents to discuss multiple problem-solving contexts. Researchers should also find ways to incorporate multiple contexts and diverse perspectives into their utility measures.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Genetics in Medicine
Genetics in Medicine 医学-遗传学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.80%
发文量
857
审稿时长
1.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Genetics in Medicine (GIM) is the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The journal''s mission is to enhance the knowledge, understanding, and practice of medical genetics and genomics through publications in clinical and laboratory genetics and genomics, including ethical, legal, and social issues as well as public health. GIM encourages research that combats racism, includes diverse populations and is written by authors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信