患者报告的经历在披露产前基因检测中的作用:孕妇大规模调查的结果

IF 1.5 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Amerigo Ferrari , Federico Pennestrì , Manila Bonciani , Giuseppe Banfi , Milena Vainieri , Rossella Tomaiuolo
{"title":"患者报告的经历在披露产前基因检测中的作用:孕妇大规模调查的结果","authors":"Amerigo Ferrari ,&nbsp;Federico Pennestrì ,&nbsp;Manila Bonciani ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Banfi ,&nbsp;Milena Vainieri ,&nbsp;Rossella Tomaiuolo","doi":"10.1016/j.eurox.2024.100327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Pregnant women can choose from different prenatal genetic tests throughout their maternity journey. We aim to investigate the clinical, societal, and economic determinants influencing the selection of different options (non-invasive, invasive, or both).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic survey focusing on maternity pathways was launched by the Region of Tuscany, Italy, to collect data on pregnant women’s experience, outcomes and satisfaction levels. Drawing from this survey, we retrospectively analyzed data on women who filled out the second-trimester questionnaire between March 2019 and February 2023 (n = 27,337), providing complete data on relevant variables. Logistic regression models were applied to identify the factors contributing to a higher likelihood of opting for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive testing.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among the participants, 42.7 % chose only NIPT, 3.8 % opted for invasive tests exclusively, 1.3 % underwent both tests, and 52.2 % did not pursue any genetic testing. NIPT was more often chosen by older, Italian, highly educated, nulliparous women, who perceived better health, were employed (versus unemployed), had higher economic status, planned pregnancy, received hospital-based care (versus counseling center), under gynecologist supervision (versus midwife), not opted for combined testing and received pregnancy vaccinations. Conversely, invasive testing was more prevalent among older women but less common among those who were nulliparous, had Italian nationality, and had a perceived better health status. This group also tended to experience unplanned and high-risk pregnancy, did not take folate during pregnancy, received public hospital-based assistance, less frequently chose combined tests or NIPT, and had frequent delays in examinations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Various factors beyond clinical considerations influence the selection of a prenatal test. Therefore, NIPT pathways should include balanced, high-quality information about benefits and limitations, ensuring laboratory specialists' active and integrated involvement in decision-making.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37085,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590161324000474/pdfft?md5=988a75c8571e8e880a22dc222ad0cb87&pid=1-s2.0-S2590161324000474-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of patient-reported experiences in disclosing genetic prenatal testing: Findings from a large-scale survey on pregnant women\",\"authors\":\"Amerigo Ferrari ,&nbsp;Federico Pennestrì ,&nbsp;Manila Bonciani ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Banfi ,&nbsp;Milena Vainieri ,&nbsp;Rossella Tomaiuolo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.eurox.2024.100327\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Pregnant women can choose from different prenatal genetic tests throughout their maternity journey. We aim to investigate the clinical, societal, and economic determinants influencing the selection of different options (non-invasive, invasive, or both).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic survey focusing on maternity pathways was launched by the Region of Tuscany, Italy, to collect data on pregnant women’s experience, outcomes and satisfaction levels. Drawing from this survey, we retrospectively analyzed data on women who filled out the second-trimester questionnaire between March 2019 and February 2023 (n = 27,337), providing complete data on relevant variables. Logistic regression models were applied to identify the factors contributing to a higher likelihood of opting for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive testing.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among the participants, 42.7 % chose only NIPT, 3.8 % opted for invasive tests exclusively, 1.3 % underwent both tests, and 52.2 % did not pursue any genetic testing. NIPT was more often chosen by older, Italian, highly educated, nulliparous women, who perceived better health, were employed (versus unemployed), had higher economic status, planned pregnancy, received hospital-based care (versus counseling center), under gynecologist supervision (versus midwife), not opted for combined testing and received pregnancy vaccinations. Conversely, invasive testing was more prevalent among older women but less common among those who were nulliparous, had Italian nationality, and had a perceived better health status. This group also tended to experience unplanned and high-risk pregnancy, did not take folate during pregnancy, received public hospital-based assistance, less frequently chose combined tests or NIPT, and had frequent delays in examinations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Various factors beyond clinical considerations influence the selection of a prenatal test. Therefore, NIPT pathways should include balanced, high-quality information about benefits and limitations, ensuring laboratory specialists' active and integrated involvement in decision-making.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590161324000474/pdfft?md5=988a75c8571e8e880a22dc222ad0cb87&pid=1-s2.0-S2590161324000474-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590161324000474\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590161324000474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

导言孕妇在整个孕产过程中可以选择不同的产前基因检测。我们旨在调查影响选择不同方案(无创、有创或两者兼有)的临床、社会和经济决定因素。方法 意大利托斯卡纳大区发起了一项以孕产途径为重点的系统调查,以收集有关孕妇的经历、结果和满意度的数据。根据这项调查,我们回顾性地分析了2019年3月至2023年2月期间填写第二孕期问卷的孕妇数据(n = 27337),提供了相关变量的完整数据。结果在参与者中,42.7%的人只选择了无创产前检测(NIPT),3.8%的人只选择了有创检测,1.3%的人同时进行了两种检测,52.2%的人没有进行任何基因检测。选择 NIPT 的多为年龄较大、意大利籍、受过高等教育、非一胎妊娠的妇女,她们认为自己的健康状况较好、有工作(相对于失业)、经济地位较高、计划怀孕、接受医院护理(相对于咨询中心)、在妇科医生指导下(相对于助产士)、未选择联合检测和接受妊娠疫苗接种。相反,侵入性检查在年龄较大的妇女中更为普遍,但在那些未婚先孕、拥有意大利国籍和健康状况较好的妇女中则较少见。这组妇女还往往经历过意外怀孕和高危妊娠,在怀孕期间没有服用叶酸,接受过公立医院的援助,较少选择联合检查或 NIPT,而且检查经常延迟。因此,NIPT 途径应包括有关益处和局限性的均衡、高质量的信息,确保实验室专家积极、全面地参与决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The role of patient-reported experiences in disclosing genetic prenatal testing: Findings from a large-scale survey on pregnant women

Introduction

Pregnant women can choose from different prenatal genetic tests throughout their maternity journey. We aim to investigate the clinical, societal, and economic determinants influencing the selection of different options (non-invasive, invasive, or both).

Methods

A systematic survey focusing on maternity pathways was launched by the Region of Tuscany, Italy, to collect data on pregnant women’s experience, outcomes and satisfaction levels. Drawing from this survey, we retrospectively analyzed data on women who filled out the second-trimester questionnaire between March 2019 and February 2023 (n = 27,337), providing complete data on relevant variables. Logistic regression models were applied to identify the factors contributing to a higher likelihood of opting for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and invasive testing.

Results

Among the participants, 42.7 % chose only NIPT, 3.8 % opted for invasive tests exclusively, 1.3 % underwent both tests, and 52.2 % did not pursue any genetic testing. NIPT was more often chosen by older, Italian, highly educated, nulliparous women, who perceived better health, were employed (versus unemployed), had higher economic status, planned pregnancy, received hospital-based care (versus counseling center), under gynecologist supervision (versus midwife), not opted for combined testing and received pregnancy vaccinations. Conversely, invasive testing was more prevalent among older women but less common among those who were nulliparous, had Italian nationality, and had a perceived better health status. This group also tended to experience unplanned and high-risk pregnancy, did not take folate during pregnancy, received public hospital-based assistance, less frequently chose combined tests or NIPT, and had frequent delays in examinations.

Conclusions

Various factors beyond clinical considerations influence the selection of a prenatal test. Therefore, NIPT pathways should include balanced, high-quality information about benefits and limitations, ensuring laboratory specialists' active and integrated involvement in decision-making.

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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
58 days
×
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