Lay perceptions of predictive testing for diabetes based on DNA test results versus family history assessment: a focus group study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study assessed lay perceptions of issues related to predictive genetic testing for multifactorial diseases. These perceived issues may differ from the "classic" issues, e.g. autonomy, discrimination, and psychological harm that are considered important in predictive testing for monogenic disorders. In this study, type 2 diabetes was used as an example, and perceptions with regard to predictive testing based on DNA test results and family history assessment were compared.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight focus group interviews were held with 45 individuals aged 35-70 years with (n = 3) and without (n = 1) a family history of diabetes, mixed groups of these two (n = 2), and diabetes patients (n = 2). All interviews were transcribed and analysed using Atlas-ti.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most participants believed in the ability of a predictive test to identify people at risk for diabetes and to motivate preventive behaviour. Different reasons underlying motivation were considered when comparing DNA test results and a family history risk assessment. A perceived drawback of DNA testing was that diabetes was considered not severe enough for this type of risk assessment. In addition, diabetes family history assessment was not considered useful by some participants, since there are also other risk factors involved, not everyone has a diabetes family history or knows their family history, and it might have a negative influence on family relations. Respect for autonomy of individuals was emphasized more with regard to DNA testing than family history assessment. Other issues such as psychological harm, discrimination, and privacy were only briefly mentioned for both tests.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results suggest that most participants believe a predictive genetic test could be used in the prevention of multifactorial disorders, such as diabetes, but indicate points to consider before both these tests are applied. These considerations differ with regard to the method of assessment (DNA test or obtaining family history) and also differ from monogenic disorders.</p

Maltreatment during childhood: a risk factor for the development of endometriosis?

STUDY QUESTION: Is maltreatment during childhood (MC), e.g. sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect, associated with diagnosis of endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: Childhood sexual abuse, emotional abuse/neglect and inconsistency experiences were associated with the diagnosis of endometriosis while no such association was found for physical abuse/neglect and other forms of maltreatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Symptoms of endometriosis such as chronic pelvic pain, fatigue and depression, are correlated with MC, as are immune reactions linked to endometriosis. These factors support a case for a potential role of MC in the development of endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The study was designed as a multicentre retrospective case-control study. Women with a diagnosis of endometriosis were matched to control women from the same clinic/doctor's office with regard to age (±3 years) and ethnic background. A total of 421 matched pairs were included in the study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with endometriosis and control women were recruited in university hospitals, district hospitals, and doctors' offices in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. A German-language version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) was used to evaluate MC. Diagnosis of endometriosis was confirmed histologically and classified according to ASRM criteria. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Women with endometriosis reported significantly more often than control women a history of sexual abuse (20%/14%, P = 0.0197), emotional abuse (44%/28%, P < 0.0001), emotional neglect (50%/42%, P = 0.0123) and inconsistency experiences (53%/41%, P = 0.0007). No statistically significant differences could be demonstrated for physical abuse/neglect (31%/26%, P = 0.1738). Combinations of different abuse/neglect experiences were described significantly more often in women with endometriosis. Frequencies of other MC, i.e. violence against the mother (8%/7%, P = 0.8222), drug abuse in the family (5%/3%, P = 0.0943), mentally handicapped family members (1%/1%, P = 0.7271), suicidal intentions in the family (6%/4%, P = 0.2879) and family members in prison (1%/1%, P = 0.1597) were not statistically different in women with endometriosis and control women. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some control women might present asymptomatic endometriosis, which would lead to underestimation of our findings. The exclusion of pregnant women may have biased the results. Statistical power for sub-analyses of physical abuse/neglect and sexual abuse was limited. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A link to MC needs to be considered in women with endometriosis. As there are effective strategies to avoid long-term consequences of MC, healthcare professionals should inquire about such experiences in order to be able to provide treatment for the consequences as early as possible. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Endo_QoL NCT 02511626

Maltreatment during childhood: a risk factor for the development of endometriosis?

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Is maltreatment during childhood (MC), e.g. sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect, associated with diagnosis of endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER Childhood sexual abuse, emotional abuse/neglect and inconsistency experiences were associated with the diagnosis of endometriosis while no such association was found for physical abuse/neglect and other forms of maltreatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Symptoms of endometriosis such as chronic pelvic pain, fatigue and depression, are correlated with MC, as are immune reactions linked to endometriosis. These factors support a case for a potential role of MC in the development of endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The study was designed as a multicentre retrospective case-control study. Women with a diagnosis of endometriosis were matched to control women from the same clinic/doctor's office with regard to age (±3 years) and ethnic background. A total of 421 matched pairs were included in the study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women with endometriosis and control women were recruited in university hospitals, district hospitals, and doctors' offices in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. A German-language version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) was used to evaluate MC. Diagnosis of endometriosis was confirmed histologically and classified according to ASRM criteria. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Women with endometriosis reported significantly more often than control women a history of sexual abuse (20%/14%, P = 0.0197), emotional abuse (44%/28%, P < 0.0001), emotional neglect (50%/42%, P = 0.0123) and inconsistency experiences (53%/41%, P = 0.0007). No statistically significant differences could be demonstrated for physical abuse/neglect (31%/26%, P = 0.1738). Combinations of different abuse/neglect experiences were described significantly more often in women with endometriosis. Frequencies of other MC, i.e. violence against the mother (8%/7%, P = 0.8222), drug abuse in the family (5%/3%, P = 0.0943), mentally handicapped family members (1%/1%, P = 0.7271), suicidal intentions in the family (6%/4%, P = 0.2879) and family members in prison (1%/1%, P = 0.1597) were not statistically different in women with endometriosis and control women. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Some control women might present asymptomatic endometriosis, which would lead to underestimation of our findings. The exclusion of pregnant women may have biased the results. Statistical power for sub-analyses of physical abuse/neglect and sexual abuse was limited. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A link to MC needs to be considered in women with endometriosis. As there are effective strategies to avoid long-term consequences of MC, healthcare professionals should inquire about such experiences in order to be able to provide treatment for the consequences as early as possible. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Endo_QoL NCT 02511626