Preconceptional cystic fibrosis carrier screening: Opinions of general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians in the Netherlands: Opinions of general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians in The Netherlands

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)


Knowledge of the opinions of physicians with regard to preconceptional cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier screening and the possible factors that are associated with their opinions is important for the implementation of such a screening program. Data were obtained from a study in which genetic knowledge, opinions with regard to genetic testing and related skills were investigated. A questionnaire, developed and used by American researchers, was adapted to the Dutch health care situation, and sent to randomly selected general practitioners (GPs) (n = 200), gynecologists (GYNs) (n = 300), and pediatricians (PEDs) (n = 265). In this part of the study, their opinions with regard to genetic preconceptional CF carrier screening in different situations were assessed. The response rate for the GPs, GYNs, and PEDs was 64%, 69%, and 72%, respectively. In total, 63% of the GPs, 69% of the GYNs and 72% of the PEDs supported preconceptional CF carrier testing if a couple requested a test. Sixteen percent, 19% and 25%, respectively, were in favor of actively offering a test with 95% test sensitivity to all couples who were planning a pregnancy. A positive opinion on preconceptional CF carrier screening was associated with the following variables: "considering the test sensitivity as less important" (GPs, GYNs), "high perceived risk of having a child with CF" (GYNs), "providing genetic counselling in their own practice" (PEDs) and "reassurance when both partners test negative" (PEDs). Physicians are sympathetic toward preconceptional CF carrier screening if the couples themselves request a test. Physicians had reservations about routinely offering a CF carrier test.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)431-436
Number of pages6
JournalGenetic testing
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2004

Cite this