Suchergebnisse

In spite of being very commonly used, the term genetic testing is debatable and used with several meanings. The diversity of existing definitions is confusing for scientists, clinicians and other professionals, health authorities, legislators and regulating agencies and the civil society in general, particularly when genetic testing is the object of guidelines or legal documents. This work compares definitions of genetic testing found in recommendations, guidelines and reports from international institutions, policy makers and professional organizations, but also in documents from other stakeholders in the field, as the pharmaceutical industry, insurers, ethics bodies, patient organizations or human-rights associations. A systematic review of these documents confirmed the extreme variability existing in the concepts and the ambiguous or equivocal use of the term. Some definitions (narrower) focus on methodologies or the material analysed, while others (broader) are information- or context-based. Its scope may range from being synonymous of just DNA analysis, to any test that yields genetic data. Genetic testing and genetic information, which may be derived from a range of medical exams or even family history, are often used interchangeably. Genetic testing and genetic screening are sometimes confused. Human molecular genetics (a discipline) is not always distinguished from molecular biology (a tool). Professional background, geographical context and purpose of the organizations may influence scope and usage. A common consensus definition does not exist. Nevertheless, a clear set of precise definitions may help creating a common language among geneticists and other health professionals. Moreover, a clear context-dependent, operative definition should always be given.

Genetic testing is a term used in different settings, often with very different meanings. There are only very few studies published about the various possible definitions of "genetic testing", and evidence is lacking from its use in professional practise. The need for precise definitions is particularly felt when producing legislation, policy recommendations or professional guidelines. EuroGentest Unit 3 (Clinical, Community and Public Health Genetics) had, as one of its objectives, to analyse definitions of "genetic testing" and propose consensus working definitions, if possible. To assess what was meant when using this term, in each individual professional context, a questionnaire was developed to evaluate if a consensus definition was desirable and achievable and what items or information should be included in the scope of such a definition. The questionnaire was sent to all EuroGentest partners and other registered users of its website; 135 answers were received, a response rate of 22%. The need for a consensus definition was acknowledged by the vast majority, although there was much less concordance about the possibility of attaining one. Clinical geneticists were the most supportive for context-dependent definitions. Conflicting perspectives arose, however, when discussing the inclusion of some type of tests, material or technology used. At issue seemed to be the distinction between the concepts of genetic material-based testing and genetic information.

<i>Objective:</i> To describe and compare the information obstetricians and geneticists in five European countries report they would give following the prenatal diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome. <i>Methods:</i> 388 obstetricians and 269 geneticists from Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK completed a brief questionnaire assessing two variables: the information they reported providing to parents following the prenatal diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome (categorized as positive or negative); and their perceptions of the quality of life with the condition. <i>Results:</i> Geneticists were more likely than obstetricians to report providing more positive than negative information about Klinefelter syndrome than equal amounts of positive and negative information or more negative than positive information about the condition (excess positive information). Regardless of specialty, the information that health professionals reported providing was predicted by their perceptions of the quality of life with the condition, and the country from which they came. Those perceiving quality of life as greater were more likely to provide an excess positive information, as were health professionals from Germany and the UK. <i>Conclusions:</i> These results suggest that the information parents across Europe receive after the prenatal diagnosis of Klinefelter syndrome varies according to the specialty and country of the health professionals consulted, and their perceptions of quality of life with the condition. This variation seems to reflect personal, cultural and professional differences between health professionals.