Newborn screening for haemophilia: The views of families and adults living with haemophilia in the UK.

Felicity K Boardman, Rachel Hale, Philip J Young
Author Information
  1. Felicity K Boardman: Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. ORCID
  2. Rachel Hale: Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
  3. Philip J Young: School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: As genomic sequencing become more efficient and cost-effective, the number of conditions identified through newborn screening globally is set to dramatically increase. Haemophilia is a candidate condition; however, very little is known about the attitudes of the haemophilia community towards screening.
AIM: This study aimed to outline the perspectives of adults with haemophilia and their families towards newborn screening.
METHODS: A paper and online survey on screening were distributed to every family known to the Haemophilia Society UK. Data collection occurred between January and June 2018. In total, 327 participants completed the survey: 76% were a relative of a person with haemophilia and 24% had haemophilia themselves; 83% were living with haemophilia A and 17% with haemophilia B.
RESULTS: The vast majority supported newborn screening (77%) and preferred it to other forms of screening (preconception or prenatal). Participants supported newborn screening primarily because they viewed it as a means to facilitate early support and treatment, facilitate informed decisions about future pregnancies and prevent the "diagnostic odyssey." The 23% who did not support the screen did not associate these particular benefits with newborn screening.
CONCLUSION: Haemophilia emerged from this analysis as a condition that the vast majority of participants considered a "liveable" disability and one best suited to newborn screening programmes that could improve support to affected families rather than reduce the birth rate of affected children.

Keywords

References

  1. Haemophilia. 2008 Jan;14(1):56-64 [PMID: 17941828]
  2. J Formos Med Assoc. 2015 Aug;114(8):722-8 [PMID: 23932837]
  3. J Genet Couns. 2019 Feb;28(1):141-154 [PMID: 30629758]
  4. Haemophilia. 2005 Mar;11(2):123-32 [PMID: 15810914]
  5. J Public Health Policy. 2008 Apr;29(1):121-42 [PMID: 18368024]
  6. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2013 Sep-Oct;38(5):289-94; quiz 295-6 [PMID: 23799342]
  7. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2019 May;7(5):e618 [PMID: 30838796]
  8. Am J Law Med. 1991;17(1-2):15-50 [PMID: 1877608]
  9. Am J Med Genet A. 2017 Feb;173(2):421-434 [PMID: 27792846]
  10. Haemophilia. 2007 Sep;13(5):570-9 [PMID: 17880446]
  11. Am J Med Genet A. 2017 Jun;173(6):1546-1561 [PMID: 28374951]
  12. Health Expect. 2018 Feb;21(1):201-211 [PMID: 28703871]
  13. Genet Med. 2003 Sep-Oct;5(5):378-84 [PMID: 14501833]
  14. Haemophilia. 2012 Jul;18(4):584-92 [PMID: 22250892]
  15. Muscle Nerve. 2014 Jun;49(6):822-8 [PMID: 24307279]
  16. Haemophilia. 2019 Mar;25(2):276-282 [PMID: 30817064]
  17. Int Health. 2018 Mar 01;10(2):100-107 [PMID: 29528401]
  18. Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 15;7(1):17641 [PMID: 29247206]

Grants

  1. 203384/Z/16/Z/Wellcome Trust

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Family
Female
Genetic Testing
Hemophilia A
Hemophilia B
Humans
Infant, Newborn
Male
Middle Aged
Neonatal Screening
Surveys and Questionnaires
United Kingdom
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0screeninghaemophilianewbornHaemophiliafamiliessupportconditionknownattitudestowardsadultsUKparticipantslivingvastmajoritysupportedfacilitateaffectedINTRODUCTION:genomicsequencingbecomeefficientcost-effectivenumberconditionsidentifiedgloballysetdramaticallyincreasecandidatehoweverlittlecommunityAIM:studyaimedoutlineperspectivesMETHODS:paperonlinesurveydistributedeveryfamilySocietyDatacollectionoccurredJanuaryJune2018total327completedsurvey:76%relativeperson24%83%17%BRESULTS:77%preferredformspreconceptionprenatalParticipantsprimarilyviewedmeansearlytreatmentinformeddecisionsfuturepregnanciesprevent"diagnosticodyssey"23%screenassociateparticularbenefitsCONCLUSION:emergedanalysisconsidered"liveable"disabilityonebestsuitedprogrammesimproveratherreducebirthratechildrenNewbornhaemophilia:viewsbloodspotethicsgeneticssocialimplications

Similar Articles

Cited By