Exploring the Willingness for Carrier Screening among Extended Family Members of a Thalassaemia Carrier Individual: A Lesson Learned
Abstract
Thalassaemia carrier screening is commonly conducted among direct-related or immediate family members of thalassaemia patients followed by a counselling about the thalassaemia. In countries where prevalence of thalassaemia carrier is high, carrier screening in general population is mandatory for example in pregnant women, in high school students, young adults or even before marriage [1, 2]. This screening may play a major role for carrier identification. A study conducted in Pakistan showed that siblings identified as β-thalassaemia carriers is higher as opposed to carriers in the general population i.e. 62.2% vs 5 to 8 %, respectively [3]. Therefore, it is practical to focus on siblings of identified thalassaemia patients when both resources and budgets are limited. In Indonesia, thalassaemia major is placed as number 6th in the catastrophic list. Although Indonesia harbours 6 to 10% thalassaemia carriers, carrier screening has not been put as mandatory yet. Furthermore, the willingness for carrier screening is still lacking. The purpose of this report was to explore the willingness for carrier screening in an extended family members of thalassaemia carrier individuals. This was an observational and descriptive study, conducted during a cross sectional event for thalassaemia carrier screening during a family gathering for 3 generations. A thalassaemia carrier individual, designated as Index Carrier (IC) aged 20 years old, was identified during a regular medical check-up prior student admission to the university. After counselling, the IC intended to screen the extended family from both father’s and mother’s side. The family was approached and during their family gathering, thalassaemia case story was introduced and shared. A family tree was drawn to identify whether thalassaemia patients presence among the extended family. The carrier screening was initially offered for the unmarried children older than 15 years old who came in the gathering, however, their parents were also encouraged to screen for the carrier status. After verbal informed consent and permission of the parents, blood was drawn in an EDTA tube. Complete blood count was measured and Shine and Lal index (MCV2 x MCH/100) was calculated. Value of <1530 was designated as β-thalassaemia carriers as described earlier [4]. MCV and MCH value of <75 fl and <25 pg, respectively, were further subjected for HbA2 measurement. Those who were suspected β-thalassaemia carriers were counselled individually with their parents, especially for those who were younger than 18 years old.
None of the direct-related and extended family members of IC knew about thalassaemia as a disease. The family tree had identified a suspected thalassaemia major patient, i.e. the son of grandfather’s brother of IC, from the mother side, who died 30 years ago at aged 5 years old after receiving several times of blood transfusions. This thalassaemia patient had 2 sisters; the first sister later migrated to Australia, and admitted during the gathering that she was a carrier, detected during her first pregnancy with all of her three children were also carriers, detected later in high school after knowing that the mother was a carrier. The second sister in Indonesia didn’t know much about the disease, and both sisters never discussed about this disease until the gathering event. She was not willing to be screened, nor her ‘healthy appearance’ children. Stigma and anxiety may play a major role; therefore, when an individual is detected to have thalassaemia carrier status, screening to extended family needs to be taken seriously into account. This is especially when no thalassaemia cases in the family members. Thalassaemia information need to be introduced and the knowledge need to be enhanced towards a positive attitude and perception. Individual with higher thalassaemia knowledge would consider and have better willingness to examine their thalassaemia carrier status earlier [5]. Haematology results showed that 6 (3 boys and 3 girls) of 16 examined unmarried children (37.5%) from 6 families had MCV <65 fL and MCH <20 pg, with Shine and Lal index <1530, indicating β-thalassaemia carriers, confirming by HbA2 value of >3.5%. Interestingly, all boys had normal Hb and all girls had moderate anemia (8-10 g/dL) and they all felt healthy and active in sports. One of those carriers was a sibling of IC while the other IC’s sibling was normal. Further examination showed that IC’s mother was a carrier but not the father. The most common β-thalassaemia mutation in West Java is IVS1nt5, followed by IVS1nt1, and HbE (unpublished data), therefore, DNA analysis is important to explore mutation types, needed for the global data.
The limitation of this study was that there was no iron measurement and DNA analysis due to limited budget. Simple haematology parameters may help identifying the carriers. Furthermore, the low knowledge and the anxiety of the participants hindered the willingness to screen their thalassaemia carrier status. As Indonesia is a multi-ethnic population country, a holistic approach to education programs in thalassaemia need to be considered for an optimal thalassaemia carrier screening. Campaign and education for community carrier screening, especially among extended family members of identified carrier individuals, need to be increased, towards zero thalassaemia. Further qualitative study needs to be explored to know the reasons for unwillingness for thalassaemia carrier screening.
References
Amato, A., et al., Carrier screening for inherited haemoglobin disorders among secondary school students
and young adults in Latium, Italy. J Community Genet, 2014. 5(3): p. 265-268.
Bhattacharyya, K.K., et al., A comprehensive screening program for β -thalassemia and other
hemoglobinopathies in the Hooghly District of West Bengal, India, dealing with 21 137 cases. Hemoglobin, 2016. 40(6): p. 396-399.
Ansari, S.H., et al., Screening immediate family members for carrier identification and counseling: a cost-
effective and practical approach. J Pak Med Assoc, 2012. 62(12): p. 1314-1317.
Susanti, A.I., et al., Low Hemoglobin among Pregnant Women in Midwives Practice of Primary Health Care, Jatinangor, Indonesia: Iron Deficiency Anemia or β-Thalassemia Trait? Anemia, 2017. 2017: p. 6935-6948.
Dewanto, J.B., et al., Increased knowledge of thalassemia promotes early carrier status examination among medical students. Univ Med, 2015. 34 (3): p. 220-228.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
JBCS Publication Ethics
JBCS is committed to ensure the publication process follows specific academic ethics. Hence, Authors, Reviewers and Editors are required to conform to standards of ethical guidelines.
Authors
Authors should discuss objectively the significance of research work, technical detail and relevant references to enable others to replicate the experiments. JBCS do not accept fraudulent or inaccurate statements that may constitute towards unethical conduct.
Authors should ensure the originality of their works. In cases where the work and/or words of others have been used, appropriate acknowledgements should be made. JBCS do not accept plagiarism in all forms that constitute towards unethical publishing of an article.
This includes simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal. Corresponding author is responsible for the full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Reviewers
Reviewers of JBCS treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Therefore, Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality and should not use privileged information and/or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
Reviews should be conducted based on academic merit and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments. In cases where selected Reviewer feels unqualified to review a manuscript, Reviewer should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process in TWO (2) weeks time from the review offer is made.
In any reasonable circumstances, Reviewers should not consider to evaluate manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest (i.e: competitive, collaborative and/or other connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions affiliated to the papers).
Editors
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit. JBCS strictly do not allow editors to use unpublished information of authors without the written consent of the author. Editors are required to take appropriate responsive actions if ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read ,The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests.
Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.
HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s) institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to Editors on request.
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.
A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
INFORMED CONSENT
For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript, this includes to all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants.
DATA SHARING POLICY
JBCS strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spreadsheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible
Authors who do not wish to share their data must state that data will not be shared, and give the reason.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The JBCS retains the copyright of published manuscripts under the terms of the Copyright Transfer Agreement. However, the journal permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided permission to reuse, distribute and reproduce is obtained from the Journal's Editor and the original work is properly cited.
While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (JBCS)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
