Insights and Experiences From the 'Gatekeepers': A Qualitative Study Exploring Clinician Perspectives on Providing Publicly Funded Prenatal Exome Sequencing.

Samantha Dayman, Melissa Graetz, Lisa Hui, Lilian Downie
Author Information
  1. Samantha Dayman: Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Newborn Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
  2. Melissa Graetz: Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Newborn Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
  3. Lisa Hui: Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Newborn Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
  4. Lilian Downie: Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Newborn Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genomics has improved etiological diagnosis for foetal structural anomalies. It is being increasingly utilised in prenatal investigation both in Australia and internationally. To date, literature reporting diagnostic yield according to indication has been available. There is limited literature around the challenges of implementation and other aspects of utility.
AIMS: We aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of clinicians involved with the delivery of a state-wide public prenatal exome sequencing (pES) service in Australia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative study was developed using a pragmatism framework. A multidisciplinary cohort of clinicians across all tertiary foetal medicine units in Victoria was interviewed. Inductive content analysis was used to understand the experiences, impact, and utility of pES.
RESULTS: Eight clinician interviews were analysed. The impact of pES on clinicians included: increased pressure, higher emotional toll, and balancing the benefits with resource limitations. PES was most useful when it provided prognostic information. The clinicians felt that pES had the most utility for patients when the result informed their decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Clinicians acknowledged their 'gatekeeper' role and valued a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach. The main perceived harm for patients was the anxiety associated with waiting times for results.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insights into the delivery of a publicly funded pES program. Our findings highlight the importance of the multidisciplinary team in the successful implementation of genomic technologies in reproductive health.

Keywords

References

  1. L. Ferretti, R. Mellis, and L. S. Chitty, ���Update on the Use of Exome Sequencing in the Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormalities,��� European Journal of Medical Genetics 62 (2019): 103663, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.05.002.
  2. M. D. Kilby, ���The Role of Next���Generation Sequencing in the Investigation of Ultrasound���Identified Fetal Structural Anomalies,��� BJOG 128 (2021): 420���429, https://doi.org/10.1111/1471���0528.16533.
  3. R. Mellis, K. Oprych, E. Scotchman, M. Hill, and L. S. Chitty, ���Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Structural Anomalies: A Systematic Review and Meta���Analysis,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42 (2022): 662���685, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6115.
  4. I. B. Van den Veyver, N. Chandler, L. E. Wilkins���Haug, R. J. Wapner, and L. S. Chitty, ���International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis Updated Position Statement on the Use of Genome���Wide Sequencing for Prenatal Diagnosis,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42 (2022): 796���803, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6157.
  5. S. Petrovski, V. Aggarwal, J. L. Giordano, et al., ���Whole���Exome Sequencing in the Evaluation of Fetal Structural Anomalies: A Prospective Cohort Study,��� Lancet (London, England) 393 (2019): 758���767, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140���6736(18)32042���7.
  6. J. Lord, D. J. McMullan, R. Y. Eberhardt, et al., ���Prenatal Exome Sequencing Analysis in Fetal Structural Anomalies Detected by Ultrasonography (PAGE): A Cohort Study,��� Lancet 393, no. 10173 (2019): 747���757, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140���6736(18)31940���8.
  7. J. Lazier, T. Hartley, J. A. Brock, et al., ���Clinical Application of Fetal Genome���Wide Sequencing During Pregnancy: Position Statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists,��� Journal of Medical Genetics 59 (2022): 931���937, https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet���2021���107897.
  8. K. G. Monaghan, N. T. Leach, D. Pekarek, P. Prasad, and N. C. Rose, ���The Use of Fetal Exome Sequencing in Prenatal Diagnosis: A Points to Consider Document of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG),��� Genetics in Medicine 22, no. 4 (2020): 675���680, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436���019���0731���7.
  9. A. Rogers, L. De Jong, W. Waters, et al., ���Extending the New Era of Genomic Testing Into Pregnancy Management: A Proposed Model for Australian Prenatal Services,��� Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 64 (2024): 467���474, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13814.
  10. M. Plantinga, L. Zwienenberg, E. van Dijk, et al., ���Parental Experiences of Rapid Exome Sequencing in Cases With Major Ultrasound Anomalies During Pregnancy,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42 (2022): 762���774, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6056.
  11. E. A. Normand, A. Braxton, S. Nassef, et al., ���Clinical Exome Sequencing for Fetuses With Ultrasound Abnormalities and a Suspected Mendelian Disorder,��� Genome Medicine 10 (2018): 74, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073���018���0582���x.
  12. F. Mone, H. Abu Subieh, S. Doyle, et al., ���Evolving Fetal Phenotypes and Clinical Impact of Progressive Prenatal Exome Sequencing Pathways: Cohort Study,��� Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 59, no. 6 (2022): 723���730, https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.24842.
  13. C. Deden, K. Neveling, D. Zafeiropopoulou, et al., ���Rapid Whole Exome Sequencing in Pregnancies to Identify the Underlying Genetic Cause in Fetuses With Congenital Anomalies Detected by Ultrasound Imaging,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 40, no. 8 (2020): 972���983, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5717.
  14. E. Dempsey, A. Haworth, L. Ive, et al., ���A Report on the Impact of Rapid Prenatal Exome Sequencing on the Clinical Management of 52 Ongoing Pregnancies: A Retrospective Review,��� BJOG 128 (2021): 1012���1019, https://doi.org/10.1111/1471���0528.16546.
  15. S. M. Outram, J. E. H. Brown, A. N. Zamora, N. Sahin���Hodoglugil, and S. L. Ackerman, ���Parental Hopes and Understandings of the Value of Prenatal Diagnostic Genomic Sequencing: A Qualitative Analysis,��� Frontiers in Genetics 13 (2022): 883225, https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.883225.
  16. K. Wou, T. Weitz, C. McCormack, et al., ���Parental Perceptions of Prenatal Whole Exome Sequencing (PPPWES) Study,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 38 (2018): 801���811, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5332.
  17. A. N. Talati, K. L. Gilmore, E. E. Hardisty, A. D. Lyerly, C. Rini, and N. L. Vora, ���Impact of Prenatal Exome Sequencing for Fetal Genetic Diagnosis on Maternal Psychological Outcomes and Decisional Conflict in a Prospective Cohort,��� Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 23 (2021): 713���719, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436���020���01025���5.
  18. H. McInnes���Dean, R. Mellis, M. Daniel, et al., ������Something That Helped the Whole Picture���: Experiences of Parents Offered Rapid Prenatal Exome Sequencing in Routine Clinical Care in the English National Health Service,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 44 (2024): 465���479, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6537.
  19. R. Mellis, D. Tapon, N. Shannon, et al., ���Implementing a Rapid Fetal Exome Sequencing Service: What Do Parents and Health Professionals Think?,��� Prenatal Diagnosis 42 (2022): 783���795, https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6140.
  20. Z. Stark and S. Ellard, ���Rapid Genomic Testing for Critically Ill Children: Time to Become Standard of Care?,��� European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG 30 (2022): 142���149, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431���021���00990���y.
  21. L. M. Kelly and M. Cordeiro, ���Three Principles of Pragmatism for Research on Organizational Processes,��� Methodological Innovations 13, no. 2 (2020): 2059799120937242, https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120937242.
  22. V. Kaushik and C. A. Walsh, ���Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research,��� Social Sciences 8 (2019): 255.
  23. D. F. Vears and L. Gillam, ���Inductive Content Analysis: A Guide for Beginning Qualitative Researchers,��� Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi���Professional Journal 23 (2022): 111���127, https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i1.544.
  24. L. Mollison, J. M. O'Daniel, G. E. Henderson, J. S. Berg, and D. Skinner, ���Parents' Perceptions of Personal Utility of Exome Sequencing Results,��� Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 22, no. 4 (2020): 752���757, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436���019���0730���8.
  25. I. Bedei, A. Wolter, A. Weber, F. Signore, and R. Axt���Fliedner, ���Chances and Challenges of New Genetic Screening Technologies (NIPT) in Prenatal Medicine From a Clinical Perspective: A Narrative Review,��� Genes (Basel) 12 (2021): 12040501, https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12040501.
  26. M. Peter, R. Mellis, H. McInnes���Dean, et al., ���Delivery of a National Prenatal Exome Sequencing Service in England: A Mixed Methods Study Exploring Healthcare Professionals' Views and Experiences,��� Frontiers in Genetics 15 (2024): 1401705, https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2024.1401705.
  27. S. Narayanan, B. Blumberg, M. L. Clayman, V. Pan, and C. Wicklund, ���Exploring the Issues Surrounding Clinical Exome Sequencing in the Prenatal Setting,��� Journal of Genetic Counseling 27 (2018): 1228���1237, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897���018���0245���5.
  28. N. L. Vora, K. Gilmore, A. Brandt, et al., ���An Approach to Integrating Exome Sequencing for Fetal Structural Anomalies Into Clinical Practice,��� Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 22 (2020): 954���961, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436���020���0750���4.

Grants

  1. /Norman Beischer Medical Research Foundation

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0pESutilitycliniciansprenatalmultidisciplinarydiagnosisfoetalAustralialiteratureimplementationexperiencesperspectivesdeliveryexomesequencingstudyimpactclinicianpatientsBACKGROUND:GenomicsimprovedetiologicalstructuralanomaliesincreasinglyutilisedinvestigationinternationallydatereportingdiagnosticyieldaccordingindicationavailablelimitedaroundchallengesaspectsAIMS:aimedexploreinvolvedstate-widepublicserviceMATERIALSANDMETHODS:qualitativedevelopedusingpragmatismframeworkcohortacrosstertiarymedicineunitsVictoriainterviewedInductivecontentanalysisusedunderstandRESULTS:Eightinterviewsanalysedincluded:increasedpressurehigheremotionaltollbalancingbenefitsresourcelimitationsPESusefulprovidedprognosticinformationfeltresultinformeddecisionwhethercontinuepregnancyCliniciansacknowledged'gatekeeper'rolevaluedcollaborativeapproachmainperceivedharmanxietyassociatedwaitingtimesresultsCONCLUSIONS:providesinsightspubliclyfundedprogramfindingshighlightimportanceteamsuccessfulgenomictechnologiesreproductivehealthInsightsExperiences'Gatekeepers':QualitativeStudyExploringClinicianPerspectivesProvidingPubliclyFundedPrenatalExomeSequencinggenomics

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.