Preferences for results from genomic microarrays: Comparing parents and health care providers

Clinical Genetics

Volumn 87, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 21-29

  Turbitt, E ^a,b   Halliday, J L ^a,b   Amor, D J ^a,c   Metcalfe, S A ^a,b  

^a MURDOCH CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c Victorian Clinical Genetics Service   (Australia)

Author keywords

Chromosome microarrays; Genetic testing; Medical genetics; Paediatrics; Parents; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PEDIATRICIAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; WHOLE EXOME SEQUENCING; WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUSTRALIA; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETICS; HUMAN CHROMOSOME; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PATIENT; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AUSTRALIA; CHROMOSOMES, HUMAN; DISCLOSURE; GENETIC COUNSELING; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; MICROARRAY ANALYSIS; PATIENTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84919429853     PISSN: 00099163     EISSN: 13990004     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cge.12398     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S et al. Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet 2010: 86: 749-764.
2. Palmer EE, Peters GB, Mowat D. Chromosome microarray in Australia: a guide for paediatricians. J Paediatr Child Health 2012: 48: E59-E67.
3. Lee C, Iafrate A. Copy number variations and clinical cytogenetic diagnosis of constitutional disorders. Nat Genet 2007: 39: S48-S54.
4. Kearney H, South S, Wolff D, Lamb A, Hamosh A, Rao KW. American College of Medical Genetics recommendations for the design and performance expectations for clinical genomic copy number microarrays intended for use in the postnatal setting for detection of constitutional abnormalities. Genet Med 2011: 13: 676.
5. Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). Implementation of massively parallel sequencing in diagnostic medical genetic testing 2013, from http://pathwiki.rcpaqap.com.au/pathwiki/index.php/Introduction. Accessed on January 13, 2014.
6. Reiff M, Ross K, Mulchandani S et al. Physicians' perspectives on the uncertainties and implications of chromosomal microarray testing of children and families. Clin Genet 2013: 83: 23-30.
7. Reiff M, Bernhardt BA, Mulchandani S et al. "What does it mean?": uncertainties in understanding results of chromosomal microarray testing. Genet Med 2012: 14: 250-258.
8. Graungaard AH, Skov L. Why do we need a diagnosis? A qualitative study of parents? experiences, coping and needs, when the newborn child is severely disabled. Child Care Health Dev 2007: 33: 296-307.
9. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1984.
10. Rosenthal E, Biesecker L, Biesecker B. Parental attitudes toward a diagnosis in children with unidentified multiple congenital anomaly syndromes. Am J Med Genet 2001: 103: 106-114.
11. Lewis C, Skirton H, Jones R. Living without a diagnosis: the parental experience. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2010: 14: 807-815.
12. Makela NL, Birch PH, Friedman JM, Marra CA. Parental perceived value of a diagnosis for intellectual disability (ID): a qualitative comparison of families with and without a diagnosis for their child's ID. Am J Med Genet 2009: 149A: 2393-2402.
13. Turbitt E, Halliday JL, Metcalfe SA. Key informants' perspectives of implementing chromosomal microarrays into clinical practice in Australia. Twin Res Hum Genet 2013: 16: 833-839.
14. Osborne NJ, Ukoumunne OC, Wake M, Allen KJ. Prevalence of eczema and food allergy is associated with latitude in Australia. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012: 129: 865-867.
15. Krippendorf K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980.
16. Mcguire AL, Burke W. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 2008: 300: 2669-2671.
17. Deyo RA. Cascade effects of medical technology. Annu Rev Public Health 2002: 23: 23-44.
18. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The use of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis. Committee Opinion No. 581. Obstet Gynecol 2013: 122: 1374-1377.
19. McGillivray G, Rosenfeld JA, McKinlay Gardner RJ, Gillam LH. Genetic counselling and ethical issues with chromosome microarray analysis in prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn 2012: 32: 389-395.
20. Richter S, Haroun I, Graham TC, Eisen A, Kiss A, Warner E. Variants of unknown significance in BRCA testing: impact on risk perception, worry, prevention and counseling. Ann Oncol 2013: 24: viii69-viii74.
21. Vos J, Gómez-García E, Oosterwijk JC et al. Opening the psychological black box in genetic counseling. The psychological impact of DNA testing is predicted by the counselees's; perception, the medical impact by the pathogenic or uninformative BRCA1/2-result. Psychooncology 2010: 21: 29-42.