Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Experiences of nonpregnant couples after receiving reproductive genetic carrier screening results in Belgium

European Journal of Human Genetics volume 31, pages 696–702 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) allows for the identification of couples who have an increased likelihood of conceiving a child with a particular autosomal recessive or X-linked condition. The aim of this study was to assess the level of satisfaction, anxiety, knowledge retention, psychosocial and counseling-related aspects among couples who chose to have RGCS. Participants were initially informed about their screening results by telephone. After obtaining a written report of test results, participants were asked to complete an individual self-administered questionnaire. All participants (n = 67) felt they had enough information to make an informed choice. None of the participants regretted their choice to have RGCS. Test results were most often shared with parents (61%) or siblings (37%). Our findings demonstrate that the information/counseling and reporting strategy that was used in the context of this study led to high participant satisfaction, an increase in knowledge over time and favorable psychosocial and counseling-related outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Henneman L, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Cornel MC, van El CG, Forzano F, et al. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:e1–e12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Van Steijvoort E, Demuynck R, Peeters H, Vandecruys H, Verguts J, Peeraer K, et al. Reasons affecting the uptake of reproductive genetic carrier screening among nonpregnant reproductive-aged women in Flanders (Belgium). J Genet Coun. 2022;31:1043–53. n/a(n/a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Steijvoort E, Peeters H, Vandecruys H, Verguts J, Peeraer K, Matthijs G, et al. Exploring informed choice in preconception reproductive genetic carrier screening by using a modified Multidimensional Measure of Informed Choice. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105:3313–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Birnie E, Schuurmans J, Plantinga M, Abbott KM, Fenwick A, Lucassen A, et al. Couple-based expanded carrier screening provided by general practitioners to couples in the Dutch general population: psychological outcomes and reproductive intentions. Genet Med. 2021;23:1761–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. van Dijke I, Lakeman P, Sabiri N, Rusticus H, Ottenheim CPE, Mathijssen IB, et al. Couples’ experiences with expanded carrier screening: evaluation of a university hospital screening offer. Eur J Hum Genet. 2021;29:1252–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kraft SA, Schneider JL, Leo MC, Kauffman TL, Davis JV, Porter KM, et al. Patient actions and reactions after receiving negative results from expanded carrier screening. Clin Genet. 2018;93:962–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Steijvoort E, Devolder H, Geysen I, Van Epperzeel S, Peeters H, Peeraer K, et al. Expanded carrier screening in Flanders (Belgium): an online survey on the perspectives of nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Personal Med. 2021;18:361–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Steijvoort E, Devolder H, Geysen I, Van Epperzeel S, Peeters H, Peeraer K, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and preferences regarding reproductive genetic carrier screening among reproductive-aged men and women in Flanders (Belgium). Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30:1255–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31:301–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Julian LJ. Measures of anxiety: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63:S467–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schuurmans J, Birnie E, van den Heuvel LM, Plantinga M, Lucassen A, van der Kolk DM, et al. Feasibility of couple-based expanded carrier screening offered by general practitioners. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019;27:691–700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Bij AK, de Weerd S, Cikot RJ, Steegers EA, Braspenning JC. Validation of the dutch short form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: considerations for usage in screening outcomes. Community Genet. 2003;6:84–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect. 2001;4:99–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dive L, Newson AJ. Ethics of reproductive genetic carrier screening: from the clinic to the population. Public Health Ethics. 2021;14:202–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Barlow-Stewart K, Burnett L, Proos A, Howell V, Huq F, Lazarus R, et al. A genetic screening programme for Tay-Sachs disease and cystic fibrosis for Australian Jewish high school students. J Med Genet. 2003;40:e45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Gordon C, Walpole I, Zubrick SR, Bower C. Population screening for cystic fibrosis: knowledge and emotional consequences 18 months later. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2003;120A:199–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Henneman L, Bramsen I, van der Ploeg HM, ten Kate LP. Preconception cystic fibrosis carrier couple screening: impact, understanding, and satisfaction. Genet Test. 2002;6:195–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gorrie A, Archibald AD, Ioannou L, Curnow L, McClaren B. Exploring approaches to facilitate family communication of genetic risk information after cystic fibrosis population carrier screening. J Commun Genet. 2018;9:71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McClaren BJ, Aitken M, Massie J, Amor D, Ukoumunne OC, Metcalfe SA. Cascade carrier testing after a child is diagnosed with cystic fibrosis through newborn screening: investigating why most relatives do not have testing. Genet Med. 2013;15:533–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Silver J, Norton ME. Expanded carrier screening and the complexity of implementation. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:345–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all individuals that participated in this study. In addition, they would like to express their gratitude to the team of gynecologists who have contributed to this study.

Funding

This project was financially supported by the Research Fund Flanders (FWO) (G094518N).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Eva Van Steijvoort & Pascal Borry

  2. Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Hilde Peeters & Gert Matthijs

  3. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Jessa Ziekenhuis Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium

    Hilde Vandecruys & Jasper Verguts

  4. Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Karen Peeraer

Authors
  1. Eva Van Steijvoort
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hilde Peeters
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hilde Vandecruys
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jasper Verguts
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Peeraer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gert Matthijs
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pascal Borry
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EVS, HP, HV, JV, KP, GM, and PB designed the study. The data collection was carried out by EVS. The data analysis was performed by EVS. A first draft of the manuscript was written by EVS and critically discussed and revised by PB, HP, HV, JV, KP, and GM. PB coordinated the study. All the authors have approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Van Steijvoort.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

EVS, HP, HV, JV, KP, GM, and PB declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Steijvoort, E., Peeters, H., Vandecruys, H. et al. Experiences of nonpregnant couples after receiving reproductive genetic carrier screening results in Belgium. Eur J Hum Genet 31, 696–702 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01310-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01310-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links