4.4 Article

Reproductive male partner testing when the female is identified to be a genetic disease carrier

Journal

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 21-27

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.5824

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the male testing uptake rate was relatively high at 77%, a significant barrier was identified in female patients not following up on their own carrier screening results. The most reported reason for declining testing among male partners was the belief that it would not impact pregnancy management. A carrier couple rate of 8.3% was identified among partners tested.
Objective To quantify carrier testing uptake rates for male partners of women found to be a carrier(s) for autosomal recessive conditions and to understand reasons for declining testing (uptake rate). Methods A retrospective chart review of 513 female patients seen at Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School found to be carriers through expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels. The aims of this study were to determine how often their male partner chose testing, reasons for declining and the type of methodology chosen for their screening. Results Male partner uptake rate was 77%. We identified that the most significant barrier to male partner testing is female patients not following up on their own carrier screening results, thus missing the opportunity for partner testing. When male partners were provided options for testing, the most reported reason for declining is the belief it would have no impact on pregnancy management (20%). A carrier couple rate of 8.3% was identified of partners tested. Conclusion Despite a relatively high male testing uptake rate, a quarter of carrier females did not proceed with testing their partner. To ascertain fetal risk, results for both parents is necessary. Pretest counseling should stress need for potential male partner follow-up testing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available