减少产前基因检测决策中的决策冲突:产前护理开始时进行的父子干预的影响

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of Perinatal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-26 DOI:10.1515/jpm-2023-0442
Christina Collart, Caitlin Craighead, Meng Yao, Susannah Rose, Edward K. Chien, Richard M. Frankel, Marissa Coleridge, Bo Hu, Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds, Angela C. Ranzini, Ruth M. Farrell
{"title":"减少产前基因检测决策中的决策冲突:产前护理开始时进行的父子干预的影响","authors":"Christina Collart, Caitlin Craighead, Meng Yao, Susannah Rose, Edward K. Chien, Richard M. Frankel, Marissa Coleridge, Bo Hu, Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds, Angela C. Ranzini, Ruth M. Farrell","doi":"10.1515/jpm-2023-0442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling. Methods We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second–third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model. Results Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (β −3.889; [CI −7.341, −0.437]; p=0.027). Conclusions Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.","PeriodicalId":16704,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatal Medicine","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care\",\"authors\":\"Christina Collart, Caitlin Craighead, Meng Yao, Susannah Rose, Edward K. Chien, Richard M. Frankel, Marissa Coleridge, Bo Hu, Brownsyne Tucker Edmonds, Angela C. Ranzini, Ruth M. Farrell\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jpm-2023-0442\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling. Methods We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second–third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model. Results Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (β −3.889; [CI −7.341, −0.437]; p=0.027). Conclusions Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Perinatal Medicine\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Perinatal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2023-0442\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2023-0442","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标 有关产前基因筛查和诊断检测的决策冲突和遗憾可能会对当前妊娠和未来的生育决策产生重要影响。确定减少与决定使用或拒绝这些选择相关的冲突的机制,对于优化患者咨询非常必要。方法 我们在产前检查开始时对共同决策工具(NEST)进行了分组随机对照试验。入组患者在检测时(QTT)和妊娠后三个月(QFF)完成了随访调查,包括决策冲突量表(DCS)。采用多变量线性混合效应模型对 DCS 总分进行了分析。结果 在所有参与者(502 人)中,有 449 人完成了 QTT 和 QFF 调查。参与者的平均年龄为(31.6±3.8)岁,其中大多数人在参与研究时是准妈妈(321 人;71.7%)。与 QTT(NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. 对照组 18.3 [3.3, 26.7];P=0.89)相比,NEST(干预)组和对照组在 QFF(NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. 对照组 16.7 [1.7, 25.0];P=0.24)时的 DCS 总分中位数都较低。与对照组相比,暴露于 NEST 的参与者在 QFF 时的决策冲突较低(β -3.889;[CI -7.341,-0.437];P=0.027)。结论 在产前护理开始时使用共同决策工具可减少产前基因检测的决策冲突。这种干预措施有可能为面临复杂和基于偏好的产前基因检测选择的患者提供一种重要的决策支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care
Objectives Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling. Methods We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second–third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model. Results Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (β −3.889; [CI −7.341, −0.437]; p=0.027). Conclusions Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Perinatal Medicine
Journal of Perinatal Medicine 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perinatal Medicine (JPM) is a truly international forum covering the entire field of perinatal medicine. It is an essential news source for all those obstetricians, neonatologists, perinatologists and allied health professionals who wish to keep abreast of progress in perinatal and related research. Ahead-of-print publishing ensures fastest possible knowledge transfer. The Journal provides statements on themes of topical interest as well as information and different views on controversial topics. It also informs about the academic, organisational and political aims and objectives of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine.
期刊最新文献
Placental fetal vascular malperfusion in maternal diabetes mellitus. Effects of a respiratory function indicator light on visual attention and ventilation quality during neonatal resuscitation: a randomised controlled crossover simulation trial. External validation of a non-invasive vaginal tool to assess the risk of intra-amniotic inflammation in pregnant women with preterm labor and intact membranes. The value of ultrasound spectra of middle cerebral artery and umbilical artery blood flow in adverse pregnancy outcomes. A family-centric, comprehensive nurse-led home oxygen programme for neonatal chronic lung disease: home oxygen policy evaluation (HOPE) study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1