Women's health providers' perspectives on preimplantation genetic testing

Phillip A Romanski; Kaitlyn E James; Mary E Sabatini

doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.05.005

Women's health providers' perspectives on preimplantation genetic testing

Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Sep;39(3):530-537. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.05.005. Epub 2019 May 11.

Authors

Phillip A Romanski¹, Kaitlyn E James², Mary E Sabatini³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston MA, USA. Electronic address: promanski@partners.org.
² Deborah Kelly Center for Outcomes Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston MA, USA.
³ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston MA, USA.

PMID: 31300204
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.05.005

Abstract

Research question: What are the perspectives of women's health providers on the use of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for common medical disorders?

Design: A cross-sectional 15-question online anonymous survey was conducted of women's health providers specializing in general obstetrics/gynaecology, gynaecologic oncology and infertility at a tertiary care academic institution in Massachusetts, USA. Respondents could answer 'yes', 'no' or 'unsure' to each thematic question.

Results: The survey was sent to 1060 providers and 240 providers responded (response rate 22.6%). Overall, 93% of respondents supported the use of PGT for the identification of genetic mutations which lead to childhood-onset disease, 83% supported the use of PGT for chromosomal aneuploidy screening, and 76% supported the use of PGT for cancer-related genetic disorders. Only 1.7% of respondents supported the use of PGT for non-disease-related indications, including sex selection and physical traits. Compared with general obstetrics/gynaecology providers, infertility specialists were more supportive of PGT. In total, 22.5% of respondents reported no prior knowledge of PGT.

Conclusions: In a sample of women's health providers across multiple different obstetrics/gynaecology specialties, there was overall support for the use of PGT for a variety of common indications. Infertility specialists were the most supportive, which may reflect the familiarity that these providers have with this procedure. There was an overwhelmingly non-supportive response for the use of PGT for non-disease-related indications. The percentage of medical professionals working in women's health without prior knowledge of PGT (22.5%) was higher than expected, identifying the need for more education regarding the availability and potential indications for this procedure.

Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology; Ethics; In-vitro fertilization; Perspectives; Preimplantation genetic testing.

MeSH terms

Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel*
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Nurses / statistics & numerical data
Physicians / statistics & numerical data
Preimplantation Diagnosis*
Women's Health