Genomic testing for differences of sex development: Practices and perceptions of clinicians.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Gabby Atlas, Chloe Hanna, Tiong Yang Tan, Amy Nisselle, Elena Tucker, Katie Ayers, Andrew Sinclair, Michele A O'Connell
{"title":"Genomic testing for differences of sex development: Practices and perceptions of clinicians.","authors":"Gabby Atlas, Chloe Hanna, Tiong Yang Tan, Amy Nisselle, Elena Tucker, Katie Ayers, Andrew Sinclair, Michele A O'Connell","doi":"10.1111/cen.15123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the approach taken by clinicians involved in the diagnosis and management of individuals with Differences of Sex Development (DSD), particularly with regard to genomic testing, and identify perceived gaps/strengths/barriers in current practice.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>An anonymous online survey was developed, with questions exploring demographics, perceptions of genomic testing, availability of genetics services and opinions on the role and utility of genomic testing in DSD. All responses were anonymous. Clinicians involved in the diagnosis and management of individuals with DSD were recruited from relevant societies and departments across Australia and New Zealand.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>79 eligible clinicians commenced the survey, with 63 completing it and 16 providing a partial response. The perceived benefit of having a genetic diagnosis for DSD was almost unanimous (97%). Almost half (48%) of respondents reported barriers in genomic testing. 81% of respondents reported they order genomic tests currently. Approaches to genomic testing when faced with four different clinical scenarios varied across respondents. Clinicians perceived genomic testing to be underutilised (median 36 on sliding scale from 0 to 100).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite 97% of respondents reporting benefit of a genetic diagnosis for individuals with DSD, this was not reflected throughout the survey with regard to clinical implementation. When faced with clinical scenarios, the recommendations for genomic testing from respondents was much lower, indicating the discrepancy between perception and clinical practice. Genomic testing in the context of DSD is seen as both beneficial and desired, yet there are multiple barriers impacting its integration into standard clinical care.</p>","PeriodicalId":10346,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endocrinology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endocrinology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.15123","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the approach taken by clinicians involved in the diagnosis and management of individuals with Differences of Sex Development (DSD), particularly with regard to genomic testing, and identify perceived gaps/strengths/barriers in current practice.

Design and methods: An anonymous online survey was developed, with questions exploring demographics, perceptions of genomic testing, availability of genetics services and opinions on the role and utility of genomic testing in DSD. All responses were anonymous. Clinicians involved in the diagnosis and management of individuals with DSD were recruited from relevant societies and departments across Australia and New Zealand.

Results: 79 eligible clinicians commenced the survey, with 63 completing it and 16 providing a partial response. The perceived benefit of having a genetic diagnosis for DSD was almost unanimous (97%). Almost half (48%) of respondents reported barriers in genomic testing. 81% of respondents reported they order genomic tests currently. Approaches to genomic testing when faced with four different clinical scenarios varied across respondents. Clinicians perceived genomic testing to be underutilised (median 36 on sliding scale from 0 to 100).

Conclusions: Despite 97% of respondents reporting benefit of a genetic diagnosis for individuals with DSD, this was not reflected throughout the survey with regard to clinical implementation. When faced with clinical scenarios, the recommendations for genomic testing from respondents was much lower, indicating the discrepancy between perception and clinical practice. Genomic testing in the context of DSD is seen as both beneficial and desired, yet there are multiple barriers impacting its integration into standard clinical care.

性别发育差异基因组检测:临床医生的做法和看法。
目的调查参与诊断和管理性别发育差异(DSD)患者的临床医生所采取的方法,尤其是在基因组检测方面,并找出当前实践中存在的差距/优势/障碍:设计:我们开发了一项匿名在线调查,问题包括人口统计学、对基因组检测的看法、遗传学服务的可用性以及对基因组检测在DSD中的作用和实用性的看法。所有回答均为匿名。参与诊断和管理DSD患者的临床医生是从澳大利亚和新西兰的相关学会和部门招募的:79名符合条件的临床医生开始了调查,其中63人完成了调查,16人提供了部分回复。对 DSD 进行基因诊断的好处几乎得到了一致认可(97%)。近一半(48%)的受访者表示基因组检测存在障碍。81% 的受访者表示他们目前会订购基因组检测。面对四种不同的临床情况,受访者对基因组检测的态度各不相同。临床医生认为基因组检测未得到充分利用(从0到100的滑动量表中位数为36):尽管 97% 的受访者表示基因诊断可为 DSD 患者带来益处,但在整个调查中,临床实施情况并未反映出这一点。在面对临床情况时,受访者对基因组检测的建议要低得多,这表明认知与临床实践之间存在差异。在 DSD 的背景下,基因组检测被认为是有益的,也是人们所期望的,但在将其纳入标准临床护理方面却存在着多重障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Endocrinology
Clinical Endocrinology 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.10%
发文量
192
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Endocrinology publishes papers and reviews which focus on the clinical aspects of endocrinology, including the clinical application of molecular endocrinology. It does not publish papers relating directly to diabetes care and clinical management. It features reviews, original papers, commentaries, correspondence and Clinical Questions. Clinical Endocrinology is essential reading not only for those engaged in endocrinological research but also for those involved primarily in clinical practice.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信