4.5 Article

Predictive testing for Huntington disease in a developing country

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 75, 期 1, 页码 92-97

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2008.01044.x

关键词

developing country; Huntington disease; outcomes; predictive testing; uptake

资金

  1. South African Medical Research Council
  2. Sheila Bridgeman Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predictive testing for Huntington disease (HD), by means of direct mutation analysis, has been offered at the Division of Human Genetics, University of Cape Town, from 1995. The aim of this study was to compile a comprehensive profile of the participants who had undergone predictive testing in the Western Cape from 1995 to 2005. The sociodemographic data, uptake and outcome of tests were analyzed to inform changes to improve the current genetic counseling services. A retrospective cross-sectional design using a 'multi-method' approach of both qualitative and quantitative methods was used. Data were gathered from the participants' hospital files and genetic database. Psychosocial data were obtained by face-to-face interviews with the participants in their homes or venues of choice. A total of 36 predictive tests were performed. The uptake for predictive testing was approximately 4.5% of the estimated at-risk population. The cohort of 27 individuals comprised 16 females and 11 males. Their mean age was 35.3 years; 6 were mixed ancestry and 21 were White people (European ancestry); 11 tested gene positive, 15 gene negative and 1 was in the reduced penetrance range. The most important issue identified was that the uptake of individuals classified as mixed ancestry was substantially lower than that of the White people possibly due to limited access to the predictive testing program because of the low levels of income and education in the general population of families with HD. Strategies to address these aspects have been incorporated into the program and will be reassessed after 1 year.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据