Lack of provision of social and emotional information about Down syndrome associated with negative prenatal diagnosis experiences.

IF 1.5 Q4 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Journal of Community Genetics Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-15 DOI:10.1007/s12687-025-00801-7
Stephanie Meredith, Harold L Kleinert, Jian Li, Sierra Weiss, Jonathan Drummond
{"title":"Lack of provision of social and emotional information about Down syndrome associated with negative prenatal diagnosis experiences.","authors":"Stephanie Meredith, Harold L Kleinert, Jian Li, Sierra Weiss, Jonathan Drummond","doi":"10.1007/s12687-025-00801-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To determine how physician adherence to recommended practices for discussing Down syndrome (DS) impacts patient experiences, and which of these recommendations most correlate with positive prenatal patient experiences. Online surveys were distributed to mothers of children with DS born between 2016-2021. The descriptions of prenatal experiences were assigned sentiment analysis scores: positive, negative, or neutral. The scores were then compared against the adherence of clinicians to recommended practices for delivering prenatal screening results. Of the 167 patients in this study, over 50% described a negative experience. The odds of having a neutral/positive diagnosis experience were about 18 times greater for those patients whose physicians adhered to all seven social recommendations. The odds of having a positive/neutral screening experience were 11.4 times greater for those patients whose physicians adhered to both emotional recommendations (not saying \"I'm sorry\" or conveying the diagnosis as bad news\"). Most of the variance in the patient diagnosis experience was attributed to adherence to emotional recommendations and social recommendations. To meet the needs of patients, obstetricians need to address emotional, social, and informational needs by providing 1) access to balanced and accurate information about disabilities and 2) being better trained on sensitive communications.</p>","PeriodicalId":46965,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Community Genetics","volume":" ","pages":"243-254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Community Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-025-00801-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To determine how physician adherence to recommended practices for discussing Down syndrome (DS) impacts patient experiences, and which of these recommendations most correlate with positive prenatal patient experiences. Online surveys were distributed to mothers of children with DS born between 2016-2021. The descriptions of prenatal experiences were assigned sentiment analysis scores: positive, negative, or neutral. The scores were then compared against the adherence of clinicians to recommended practices for delivering prenatal screening results. Of the 167 patients in this study, over 50% described a negative experience. The odds of having a neutral/positive diagnosis experience were about 18 times greater for those patients whose physicians adhered to all seven social recommendations. The odds of having a positive/neutral screening experience were 11.4 times greater for those patients whose physicians adhered to both emotional recommendations (not saying "I'm sorry" or conveying the diagnosis as bad news"). Most of the variance in the patient diagnosis experience was attributed to adherence to emotional recommendations and social recommendations. To meet the needs of patients, obstetricians need to address emotional, social, and informational needs by providing 1) access to balanced and accurate information about disabilities and 2) being better trained on sensitive communications.

缺乏提供与负面产前诊断经历相关的唐氏综合症的社会和情感信息。
确定医生对讨论唐氏综合症(DS)的推荐做法的依从性如何影响患者体验,以及哪些建议与积极的产前患者体验最相关。在线调查分发给2016-2021年间出生的DS儿童的母亲。产前经历的描述被分配情绪分析分数:积极,消极或中性。然后将分数与临床医生对提供产前筛查结果的推荐做法的依从性进行比较。在这项研究的167名患者中,超过50%的人描述了一次消极的经历。那些医生遵守所有7项社会建议的患者,获得中立/积极诊断的几率大约是前者的18倍。对于那些医生同时遵循两种情感建议(不说“对不起”或将诊断作为坏消息传达)的患者,他们获得阳性/中性筛查结果的几率要高出11.4倍。患者诊断经验的大部分差异归因于对情感建议和社会建议的依从性。为了满足患者的需求,产科医生需要通过提供1)获得关于残疾的平衡和准确的信息,以及2)在敏感沟通方面接受更好的培训,来解决情感、社会和信息方面的需求。
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
Journal of Community Genetics
Journal of Community Genetics GENETICS & HEREDITY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Community Genetics is an international forum for research in the ever-expanding field of community genetics, the art and science of applying medical genetics to human communities for the benefit of their individuals. Community genetics comprises all activities which identify persons at increased genetic risk and has an interest in assessing this risk, in order to enable those at risk to make informed decisions. Community genetics services thus encompass such activities as genetic screening, registration of genetic conditions in the population, routine preconceptional and prenatal genetic consultations, public education on genetic issues, and public debate on related ethical issues. The Journal of Community Genetics has a multidisciplinary scope. It covers medical genetics, epidemiology, genetics in primary care, public health aspects of genetics, and ethical, legal, social and economic issues. Its intention is to serve as a forum for community genetics worldwide, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. The journal features original research papers, reviews, short communications, program reports, news, and correspondence. Program reports describe illustrative projects in the field of community genetics, e.g., design and progress of an educational program or the protocol and achievement of a gene bank. Case reports describing individual patients are not accepted.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信