Provision of genetic services for hearing loss: results from a national survey and comparison to insights obtained from previous focus group discussions.

Hearing loss is a common sensory deficit and more than 50% of affected individuals have a genetic etiology. The discovery of 40 genes and more than 100 loci involved in hearing loss has made genetic testing for some of these genes widely available. Genetic services for deafness are also being sought more often due to the early identification of hearing loss through newborn screening services. The motivations for pursuing genetic testing, and how genetic services are provided to the client may differ among individuals. Additionally, information obtained through genetic testing can be perceived and used in different ways by parents of deaf children and deaf adults. This study aimed to follow up on focus group studies published earlier with a quantitative survey instrument and assess the preference of consumers for provision of genetic services. We conducted a national survey of hearing and deaf parents of children with hearing loss and of deaf adults. Data was compared and analyzed by hearing status of the participant, their community affiliation and the genetic testing status using nominal logistic regression. Consistent with our focus group results, the survey participants thought that a genetic counselor/geneticist would be the most appropriate professional to provide genetics services. Statistically significant differences were noted in the preferred choice of provider based on the genetic testing status. Parents preferred that genetic evaluation, including testing, occur either immediately at or a few months after the audiologic diagnosis of hearing loss. This data should help providers in clinical genetics keep patient preferences at the helm and provide culturally competent services.

Impact of genetic advances and testing for hearing loss: results from a national consumer survey.

Hearing loss is a common neuro-sensory deficit; nearly 50% of children with hearing loss have a genetic etiology. With the discovery of 40 genes and more than 100 loci involved in hearing loss, genetic testing is becoming more widely available. The information obtained through genetic testing can be perceived and used in different ways by parents of deaf children and deaf adults, based on their prior knowledge and understanding of these advances. It is therefore important to clarify the feelings of these potential consumers towards genetic services for hearing loss and understand their goals for genetic testing. The present study evaluates the feelings of consumers towards the advances in the genetics of hearing loss, the motivations for pursuing testing, and the perceived impact testing may have on their lives. We surveyed 808 parents of children with hearing loss nationally and 156 young deaf adults at Gallaudet University. In this study, learning the etiology of the hearing loss was the most commonly cited motivation for pursuing genetic testing and for parents was the most commonly cited outcome that genetic testing may have on their children's lives. Culturally Deaf respondents were less likely to believe that genetic testing will impact their lives or their children's lives and were less likely to report positive feelings about advances in the genetics of hearing loss. Cultural affiliation and genetic testing status, rather than hearing status, contributed more to the participants' responses.

A focus group study of consumer attitudes toward genetic testing and newborn screening for deafness.

PURPOSE: Progress in identifying genes for deafness together with implementation of universal audiologic screening of newborns has provided the opportunity for more widespread use of molecular tests to detect genetic forms of hearing loss. Efforts to assess consumer attitudes toward these advances have lagged behind. METHODS: Consumer focus groups were held to explore attitudes toward genetic advances and technologies for hearing loss, views about newborn hearing screening, and reactions to the idea of adding molecular screening for hearing loss at birth. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed. RESULTS: Five focus groups with 44 participants including hearing parents of deaf children, deaf parents and young deaf adults were held. Focus group participants supported the use of genetic tests to identify the etiology of hearing loss but were concerned that genetic information might influence reproductive decisions. Molecular newborn screening was advocated by some; however, others expressed concern about its effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Documenting the attitudes of parents and other consumers toward genetic technologies establishes the framework for discussions on the appropriateness of molecular newborn screening for hearing loss and informs specialists about potential areas of public education necessary prior to the implementation of such screening.

Education in the genetics of hearing loss: a survey of early hearing detection and intervention programs.

PURPOSE: Permanent hearing loss at birth or in early childhood is common and has many genetic and environmental causes. Advances in the identification and characterization of genetic forms, combined with the early identification of children through the implementation of state-based Early Hearing Detection and Intervention programs suggests the need for education about the causes of hearing loss among professionals who work in these programs. METHODS: An online survey was directed to state program coordinators of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention programs to identify gaps in knowledge about the genetic causes of hearing loss and to assess interest in continuing education on this topic. RESULTS: The study identified clear gaps in respondents' knowledge about genetic causes of hearing loss. Twenty percent of respondents indicated that they had received no training in genetics. When asked to rate their knowledge about the genetics of hearing loss, most rated their knowledge as "not adequate." Respondents expressed interest in genetics training through several modalities, including a distance learning format. CONCLUSION: This study provides documentation of the need for education of health care professionals involved in the early identification of hearing loss. Suggestions for suitable educational formats based on respondent needs and interests are provided.