Prenatal whole exome sequencing: the views of clinicians, scientists, genetic counsellors and patient representatives

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 36, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 935-941

  Quinlan Jones, Elizabeth ^a   Kilby, Mark D ^a,b   Greenfield, Sheila ^b   Parker, Michael ^c   McMullan, Dominic ^a   Hurles, Matthew E ^d   Hillman, Sarah C ^a,b  

^a BIRMINGHAM CHILDREN S HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXOME; FEMALE; FETUS MALFORMATION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL WELFARE; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY; WHOLE EXOME SEQUENCING; DNA SEQUENCE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL GENETICS; OBSTETRICS; PHYSICIAN; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; TIME FACTOR; UNITED KINGDOM;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; EXOME; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC TESTING; GENETICS, MEDICAL; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; OBSTETRICS; PHYSICIANS; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; TIME FACTORS; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84988310676     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4916     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Hillman SC, Pretlove S, Coomarasamy A, et al. Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37:6–14.
2. Bernhardt BA, Soucier D, Hanson K, et al. Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results. Genet Med 2013;15:139–45.
3. Mardis ER. Next-generation DNA sequencing methods. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2008;9:387–402.
4. Brandt DS, Shinkunas L, Hillis SL, et al. A closer look at the recommended criteria for disclosing genetic results: perspectives of medical genetic specialists, genomic researchers and institutional review board chairs. J Genet Couns 2013;22:544–53.
5. Reiff M, Mueller R, Mulchandani S, et al. A qualitative study of healthcare providers' perspectives on the implications of genome-wide testing in paediatric clinical practice. J Genet Couns 2014;23:474–88.
6. Bollinger JM, Scott J, Dvoskin R, et al. Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med 2012;14:451–7.
7. Sapp JC, Dong D, Stark C, et al. Parental attitudes, values, and beliefs toward the return of results from exome sequencing in children. Clin Genet 2014;85(2):120–6.
8. Bradbury AR, Patrick-Miller L, Egleston B. Parent opinions regarding the genetic testing of minors. Genet Med 2010;28:3498–505.
9. Levenseller BL, Soucier DJ, Miller VA, et al. Stakeholders' opinions on the implementation of paediatric whole exome sequencing: implications for informed consent. J Genet Couns 2014;23:552–65.
10. Fisher A, Bonner C, Biankin AV, et al. Factors influencing intention to undergo whole genome screening in future healthcare: a single-blind parallel-group randomised trial. Prev Med 2012;55:514–20.
11. Scully JL, Porz R, Rehmann-Sutter C. ‘You don't make genetic test decisions from one day to the next’ – using time to preserve moral space. Bioethics 2007;21:208–17.
12. Hillman SC, Skelton J, Quinlan-Jones E, et al. ‘If it helps…’ The use of microarray technology in prenatal testing: patient and partners reflections. Am J Med Genet A 2013;161A:1619–27.
13. Patton MQ. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Sage: Newbury Park, California; 1990.
14. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Applied policy research (Ch 9). In Analyzing Qualitative Data. Routledge: London; 1994. p 177–94.
15. Srivastava A, Thomson SB. Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Journal of Administration and Governance 2009;4:72–9.
16. Vetro A, Bouman K, Hastings R, et al. The introduction of arrays in prenatal diagnosis: a special challenge. Hum Mutat 2012a;33:923–9.
17. Aune I, Moller A. ‘I want a choice, but I don't want to decide’ – a qualitative study of pregnant women's experiences regarding early ultrasound risk assessment for chromosomal anomalies. Midwifery 2012;28:14–23.
18. Yu JH, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, et al. Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model. Genet Med 2013;15(9):684–90.
19. Waler SA, Kellom KS, Palmer SC, et al. Comparing genetic counselor's and patient's perceptions of needs in prenatal chromosomal testing. Prenat Diagn 2015;35:870–8.
20. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2013;15:565–74.
21. Srebniak M, Boter M, Oudesluijs G, et al. Application of SNP array for rapid prenatal diagnosis: implementation, genetic counselling and diagnostic flow. Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:1230–7.
22. Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, et al. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet 2015;24(1):21–9.
23. Kalynchuk EJ, Althouse A, Parker LS, et al. Prenatal whole-exome sequencing: parental attitudes. Prenat Diagn 2015;35:1030–6.
24. Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health 1995;18:179–83.
25. Braun V, Clark V. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. Sage: London; 2013.
26. Baker SE, Edwards R. How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. NCRM, National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf [accessed on 12 April 2016].
27. Jayasekara RS. Focus groups in nursing research: methodological perspectives. Nursing Outlook 2012;60(6):411–16.