自行进行的 Rh 分型:一项横断面研究。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2024-07-14 DOI:10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202349
Divya Dethier, Mary Tschann, Meliza Roman, John J Chen, Reni Soon, Bliss Kaneshiro
{"title":"自行进行的 Rh 分型:一项横断面研究。","authors":"Divya Dethier, Mary Tschann, Meliza Roman, John J Chen, Reni Soon, Bliss Kaneshiro","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether patients are capable and willing to self-administer and interpret an EldonCard test to determine their Rh status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study in Honolulu, HI, USA of pregnancy-capable people aged 14-50 years who did not know their blood type and had never used an EldonCard. Participants independently completed EldonCard testing, determined their Rh type and answered a survey on feasibility and acceptability. Separately, a blinded clinician recorded their interpretation of the participant's EldonCard. When available, we obtained blood type from the electronic health record (EHR). We measured Rh type agreement between participant, clinician and EHR, as well as participant comfort and acceptability of testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 330 total participants, 288 (87.3%) completed testing. Patients and clinicians had 94.0% agreement in their interpretation of the EldonCard for Rh status. Patient interpretation had 83.5% agreement with EHR while clinician and EHR had 92.3% agreement. Sensitivity of EldonCard interpretation by patient and clinician was 100%. Specificity was 83.2% for patients and 92.2% for clinicians. Two patients (of 117) had Rh-negative blood type in the EHR. The vast majority of participants found the EldonCard testing easy (94.4%) and felt comfortable doing the testing (93.7%). Participants with lower education levels felt less confident (p=0.003) and less comfortable with testing (p=0.038); however, their ability to interpret results was similar to others (p=0.051).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient-performed Rh typing via the EldonCard is an effective and acceptable option for patients, and could be used as a primary screening test for Rh status.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-performed Rh typing: a cross-sectional study.\",\"authors\":\"Divya Dethier, Mary Tschann, Meliza Roman, John J Chen, Reni Soon, Bliss Kaneshiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202349\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether patients are capable and willing to self-administer and interpret an EldonCard test to determine their Rh status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional study in Honolulu, HI, USA of pregnancy-capable people aged 14-50 years who did not know their blood type and had never used an EldonCard. Participants independently completed EldonCard testing, determined their Rh type and answered a survey on feasibility and acceptability. Separately, a blinded clinician recorded their interpretation of the participant's EldonCard. When available, we obtained blood type from the electronic health record (EHR). We measured Rh type agreement between participant, clinician and EHR, as well as participant comfort and acceptability of testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 330 total participants, 288 (87.3%) completed testing. Patients and clinicians had 94.0% agreement in their interpretation of the EldonCard for Rh status. Patient interpretation had 83.5% agreement with EHR while clinician and EHR had 92.3% agreement. Sensitivity of EldonCard interpretation by patient and clinician was 100%. Specificity was 83.2% for patients and 92.2% for clinicians. Two patients (of 117) had Rh-negative blood type in the EHR. The vast majority of participants found the EldonCard testing easy (94.4%) and felt comfortable doing the testing (93.7%). Participants with lower education levels felt less confident (p=0.003) and less comfortable with testing (p=0.038); however, their ability to interpret results was similar to others (p=0.051).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patient-performed Rh typing via the EldonCard is an effective and acceptable option for patients, and could be used as a primary screening test for Rh status.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202349\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202349","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估患者是否有能力和意愿自行操作和解释 EldonCard 测试,以确定其 Rh 状态:这是一项在美国夏威夷州檀香山市进行的横断面研究,研究对象是年龄在14-50岁之间、不知道自己血型且从未使用过EldonCard的有怀孕能力的人。参与者独立完成了 EldonCard 测试,确定了自己的 Rh 血型,并回答了关于可行性和可接受性的调查。另外,一名盲人临床医生记录了他们对参与者的埃尔登卡的解释。如果有的话,我们会从电子健康记录(EHR)中获取血型。我们测量了参与者、临床医生和 EHR 之间的 Rh 血型一致性,以及参与者对测试的舒适度和接受度:在总共 330 名参与者中,288 人(87.3%)完成了检测。患者和临床医生对 EldonCard 的 Rh 状态解释有 94.0% 的一致性。患者的解释与电子病历的一致性为 83.5%,而临床医生与电子病历的一致性为 92.3%。患者和临床医生对 EldonCard 解释的灵敏度为 100%。患者的特异性为 83.2%,临床医生的特异性为 92.2%。有两名患者(共 117 人)的 EHR 血型为 Rh 阴性。绝大多数参与者认为 EldonCard 测试很简单(94.4%),并且在测试过程中感觉很舒服(93.7%)。受教育程度较低的参与者对测试的信心不足(p=0.003),感觉不太舒服(p=0.038);但他们解释结果的能力与其他人相似(p=0.051):结论:通过 EldonCard 由患者进行 Rh 分型是一种有效且可接受的选择,可用作 Rh 状态的初筛检测。
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
Self-performed Rh typing: a cross-sectional study.

Objective: To evaluate whether patients are capable and willing to self-administer and interpret an EldonCard test to determine their Rh status.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in Honolulu, HI, USA of pregnancy-capable people aged 14-50 years who did not know their blood type and had never used an EldonCard. Participants independently completed EldonCard testing, determined their Rh type and answered a survey on feasibility and acceptability. Separately, a blinded clinician recorded their interpretation of the participant's EldonCard. When available, we obtained blood type from the electronic health record (EHR). We measured Rh type agreement between participant, clinician and EHR, as well as participant comfort and acceptability of testing.

Results: Of the 330 total participants, 288 (87.3%) completed testing. Patients and clinicians had 94.0% agreement in their interpretation of the EldonCard for Rh status. Patient interpretation had 83.5% agreement with EHR while clinician and EHR had 92.3% agreement. Sensitivity of EldonCard interpretation by patient and clinician was 100%. Specificity was 83.2% for patients and 92.2% for clinicians. Two patients (of 117) had Rh-negative blood type in the EHR. The vast majority of participants found the EldonCard testing easy (94.4%) and felt comfortable doing the testing (93.7%). Participants with lower education levels felt less confident (p=0.003) and less comfortable with testing (p=0.038); however, their ability to interpret results was similar to others (p=0.051).

Conclusions: Patient-performed Rh typing via the EldonCard is an effective and acceptable option for patients, and could be used as a primary screening test for Rh status.

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
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
期刊最新文献
Shifting discourses, changing interests? How the language of sexual and reproductive health has evolved in the past 50 years. "That's not how abortions happen": a qualitative study exploring how young adults navigate abortion misinformation in the post-Roe era. Attitudes towards the regulation and provision of abortion among healthcare professionals in Britain: cross-sectional survey data from the SACHA Study. Reported side effects from hormonal contraceptives among those seeking abortion care versus contraceptive services. The post-Roe potential of mifepristone and misoprostol in the United States.
×
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