Objective: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of different modes of offering preconceptional carrier screening for cystic fibrosis (CF) in the absence of established preconceptional care services. Methods: Individuals aged 20–35 years were invited by mail, either by the Municipal Health Services (MHS) or by their own general practitioner (GP) to participate in a screening program with their partner. Pretest education was provided either during a group educational session or during a GP consultation. The reasons given by participants and nonrespondents for (not) responding to the invitation for screening, sociodemographic characteristics, and their attitudes were assessed by means of questionnaires. Results: Of 38,114 individuals who received a first invitation, approximately 20% had a partner with whom they were planning to have children. The response rate, as measured by attendance at either a group educational session or a GP consultation, was not affected by whether the letter was sent by the MHS or the person’s GP. However, the response rate was about 2.5 times higher when the letter invited people to make an appointment with their GP for a consultation regarding CF carrier screening than when it invited them to attend an educational group session. A total of 559 couples (96%) consented to have the test after education. Repetition of the invitation increased the response. The main reason given by couples for not responding was ‘lack of time to attend’ or ‘forgot about it’ (48%). Another reason given was that they did not want to know their test results (28%). Eighty-nine percent of participants and 69% of nonrespondents believed that screening should be offered routinely to couples planning to have children. The GPs consulted (n = 18) reported no negative experiences, but due to the extra workload, 11 of them would not consider it to be part of their task. Conclusions: Among couples planning to have children, there is generally a positive attitude towards routinely offering population-based CF carrier screening. Preconceptional CF carrier screening appeared feasible, both in terms of practical achievements and target group accessibility. Participation varied according to the pretest education setting, with the primary care setting producing the highest rate of attendance.

Keywords:
Cystic fibrosis, Carrier screening, General practitioner, Preconceptional care, Pretest education
1.
National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Genetic testing for cystic fibrosis. April 14–17, 1997. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:1529–1539.
2.
Watson EK, Mayall E, Chapple J, Dalziel M, Harrington K, Williams C, Williamson R: Screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis through primary health care services. Br Med J 1991;303:504–507.
3.
Bekker H, Modell M, Denniss G, Silver A, Mathew C, Bobrow M, Marteau T: Uptake of cystic fibrosis testing in primary care: Supply push or demand pull? Br Med J 1993;306:1584–1586.
4.
Tambor ES, Bernhardt BA, Chase GA, Faden RR, Geller G, Hofman KJ, Holtzman NA: Offering cystic fibrosis carrier screening to an HMO population: Factors associated with utilization. Am J Hum Genet 1994;55:626–637.
5.
Payne Y, Williams M, Cheadle J, Stott NCH, Rowlands M, Shickle D, West G, Meredith L, Goodchild M, Harper PS, Clarke A: Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis in primary care: Evaluation of a project in South Wales. Clin Genet 1997;51:153–163.
6.
Marteau TM: Population screening for cystic fibrosis: A research agenda for the next 10 years. Am J Med Genet 2000;93:205–206.
7.
Schwartz M, Brandt NJ, Skovby F: Screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis among pregnant women: A pilot study. Eur J Hum Genet 1993;1:239–244.
8.
Schmidtke J: Proceed with much more caution. Hum Genet 1994;94:25–27.
9.
De Walle HEK, Cornel MC, De Jong-van den Berg LT: Three years after the Dutch folic acid campaign: Growing socio-economic differences. Prev Med 2002;35:65–69.
10.
Raeburn JA: Screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis. Screening before pregnancy is needed. Br Med J 1994;309:1428–1429.
11.
Henneman L, Bramsen I, Van der Ploeg HM, Ader HJ, Van der Horst HE, Gille JJP, Ten Kate LP: Participation in preconceptional carrier couple screening: Characteristics, attitudes, and knowledge of both partners. J Med Genet 2001;38:695–703.
12.
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.
13.
Lench N, Stanier P, Williamson R: Simple non-invasive method to obtain DNA for gene analysis. Lancet 1988;i:1356–1358.
14.
Wu Y, Hofstra RMW, Scheffer H, Uitterlinden AG, Mullaart E, Buys CHCM, Vijg J: Comprehensive and accurate mutation scanning of the CFTR gene by two-dimensional DNA electrophoresis. Hum Mutat 1996;8:160–167.
15.
Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee Genetic Screening. Genetic Screening. The Hague, Health Council, 1994, No 1994/22E.
16.
Van de Laar J, Ten Kate LP: Preconception screening for carrier state in cystic fibrosis; testing against Health Council’s criteria for genetic screening (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1996;140:487–491.
17.
Health Council of the Netherlands: How to apply the new Population Screening Act: Cystic fibrosis (in Dutch). The Hague, Health Council of the Netherlands, 1996, No. 1996/20.
18.
Statistics Netherlands: Statistical Yearbook 1998 (in Dutch). Voorburg/Heerlen, CBS, 1998.
19.
Hermens RPMG, Tacken MAJB, Hulscher MEJL, Braspenning JCC, Grol RPTM: Attendance to cervical cancer screening in family practices in the Netherlands. Prev Med 2000;30:35–42.
20.
Honnor M, Zubrick SR, Walpole I, Bower C, Goldblatt J: Population screening for cystic fibrosis in Western Australia: Community response. Am J Med Genet 2000;93:198–204.
21.
Clayton EW, Hannig VL, Pfotenhauer JP, Parker RA, Campbell PW, Phillips JA: Lack of interest by nonpregnant couples in population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Am J Hum Genet 1996;58:617–627.
22.
Henneman L, Ten Kate LP: Preconceptional couple screening for cystic fibrosis carrier status: Couples prefer full disclosure of test results. J Med Genet 2002;39:E26.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2003
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.