产科和妇科研究员的生育能力保存培训:一个高度期望但非标准化的经验。

Fertility research and practice Pub Date : 2017-07-04 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s40738-017-0036-y
Elizabeth J N Miller, Lisa M Cookingham, Teresa K Woodruff, Ginny L Ryan, Karen M Summers, Laxmi A Kondapalli, Divya K Shah
{"title":"产科和妇科研究员的生育能力保存培训:一个高度期望但非标准化的经验。","authors":"Elizabeth J N Miller,&nbsp;Lisa M Cookingham,&nbsp;Teresa K Woodruff,&nbsp;Ginny L Ryan,&nbsp;Karen M Summers,&nbsp;Laxmi A Kondapalli,&nbsp;Divya K Shah","doi":"10.1186/s40738-017-0036-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite a large body of data suggesting that delivery of fertility care to cancer patients is inconsistent and frequently insufficient, there is a paucity of literature examining training in fertility preservation for those physicians expected to discuss options or execute therapy. The study objective was to compare fertility preservation training between Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility (REI) and Gynecologic Oncology (GYN ONC) fellows and assess the need for additional education in this field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 38-item survey was administered to REI and GYN ONC fellows in the United states in April 2014. Survey items included<b>:</b> 1) Clinical exposure, perceived quality of training, and self-reported knowledge in fertility preservation; 2) an educational needs assessment of desire for additional training in fertility preservation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-nine responses were received from 137 REI and 160 GYN ONC fellows (response rate 27%). REI fellows reported seeing significantly more fertility preservation patients and rated their training more favorably than GYN ONC fellows (48% of REI fellows versus 7% of GYN ONC fellows rated training as 'excellent', <i>p</i> < 0.001). A majority of all fellows felt discussing fertility preservation was 'very important' but fellows differed in self-reported ability to counsel patients, with 43% of REI fellows and only 4% of GYN ONC fellows able to counsel patients 'all the time' (<i>p</i> = 0.002). Seventy-six percent of all fellows felt more education in fertility preservation was required, and 91% felt it should be a required component of fellowship training.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Significant variability exists in fertility preservation training for REI and GYN ONC fellows, with the greatest gap seen for GYN ONC fellows, both in perceived quality of fertility preservation training and number of fertility preservation patients seen. A majority of fellows in both disciplines support the idea of a standardized multi-disciplinary curriculum in fertility preservation.</p>","PeriodicalId":87254,"journal":{"name":"Fertility research and practice","volume":"3 ","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40738-017-0036-y","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fertility preservation training for obstetrics and gynecology fellows: a highly desired but non-standardized experience.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth J N Miller,&nbsp;Lisa M Cookingham,&nbsp;Teresa K Woodruff,&nbsp;Ginny L Ryan,&nbsp;Karen M Summers,&nbsp;Laxmi A Kondapalli,&nbsp;Divya K Shah\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40738-017-0036-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite a large body of data suggesting that delivery of fertility care to cancer patients is inconsistent and frequently insufficient, there is a paucity of literature examining training in fertility preservation for those physicians expected to discuss options or execute therapy. The study objective was to compare fertility preservation training between Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility (REI) and Gynecologic Oncology (GYN ONC) fellows and assess the need for additional education in this field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 38-item survey was administered to REI and GYN ONC fellows in the United states in April 2014. Survey items included<b>:</b> 1) Clinical exposure, perceived quality of training, and self-reported knowledge in fertility preservation; 2) an educational needs assessment of desire for additional training in fertility preservation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-nine responses were received from 137 REI and 160 GYN ONC fellows (response rate 27%). REI fellows reported seeing significantly more fertility preservation patients and rated their training more favorably than GYN ONC fellows (48% of REI fellows versus 7% of GYN ONC fellows rated training as 'excellent', <i>p</i> < 0.001). A majority of all fellows felt discussing fertility preservation was 'very important' but fellows differed in self-reported ability to counsel patients, with 43% of REI fellows and only 4% of GYN ONC fellows able to counsel patients 'all the time' (<i>p</i> = 0.002). Seventy-six percent of all fellows felt more education in fertility preservation was required, and 91% felt it should be a required component of fellowship training.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Significant variability exists in fertility preservation training for REI and GYN ONC fellows, with the greatest gap seen for GYN ONC fellows, both in perceived quality of fertility preservation training and number of fertility preservation patients seen. A majority of fellows in both disciplines support the idea of a standardized multi-disciplinary curriculum in fertility preservation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fertility research and practice\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40738-017-0036-y\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fertility research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40738-017-0036-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40738-017-0036-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

背景:尽管大量数据表明,为癌症患者提供生育护理是不一致的,而且经常不足,但对于那些希望讨论选择或执行治疗的医生来说,关于生育保护培训的文献很少。研究的目的是比较生殖内分泌与不孕症(REI)和妇科肿瘤学(GYN ONC)研究员之间的生育保护培训,并评估在该领域进行额外教育的必要性。方法:于2014年4月对美国REI和GYN ONC研究员进行38项问卷调查。调查项目包括:1)临床接触情况、培训感知质量和自述生育保存知识;2)对生育能力保存方面额外培训的愿望进行教育需求评估。结果:137名REI研究员和160名GYN ONC研究员共收到79份回复(回复率为27%)。REI研究员报告说,与GYN ONC研究员相比,他们看到了更多的生育能力保留患者,并对他们的培训进行了更有利的评价(48%的REI研究员对7%的GYN ONC研究员评价培训为“优秀”,p p = 0.002)。76%的研究员认为需要更多的生育保护教育,91%的人认为这应该是研究金培训的必要组成部分。结论:REI和GYN ONC研究员的生育能力保存培训存在显著差异,GYN ONC研究员在生育能力保存培训的感知质量和生育能力保存患者的数量上差距最大。这两个学科的大多数研究员都支持在生育能力保存方面设置标准化多学科课程的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Fertility preservation training for obstetrics and gynecology fellows: a highly desired but non-standardized experience.

Fertility preservation training for obstetrics and gynecology fellows: a highly desired but non-standardized experience.

Fertility preservation training for obstetrics and gynecology fellows: a highly desired but non-standardized experience.

Fertility preservation training for obstetrics and gynecology fellows: a highly desired but non-standardized experience.

Background: Despite a large body of data suggesting that delivery of fertility care to cancer patients is inconsistent and frequently insufficient, there is a paucity of literature examining training in fertility preservation for those physicians expected to discuss options or execute therapy. The study objective was to compare fertility preservation training between Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility (REI) and Gynecologic Oncology (GYN ONC) fellows and assess the need for additional education in this field.

Methods: A 38-item survey was administered to REI and GYN ONC fellows in the United states in April 2014. Survey items included: 1) Clinical exposure, perceived quality of training, and self-reported knowledge in fertility preservation; 2) an educational needs assessment of desire for additional training in fertility preservation.

Results: Seventy-nine responses were received from 137 REI and 160 GYN ONC fellows (response rate 27%). REI fellows reported seeing significantly more fertility preservation patients and rated their training more favorably than GYN ONC fellows (48% of REI fellows versus 7% of GYN ONC fellows rated training as 'excellent', p < 0.001). A majority of all fellows felt discussing fertility preservation was 'very important' but fellows differed in self-reported ability to counsel patients, with 43% of REI fellows and only 4% of GYN ONC fellows able to counsel patients 'all the time' (p = 0.002). Seventy-six percent of all fellows felt more education in fertility preservation was required, and 91% felt it should be a required component of fellowship training.

Conclusion: Significant variability exists in fertility preservation training for REI and GYN ONC fellows, with the greatest gap seen for GYN ONC fellows, both in perceived quality of fertility preservation training and number of fertility preservation patients seen. A majority of fellows in both disciplines support the idea of a standardized multi-disciplinary curriculum in fertility preservation.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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