Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
Opportunities to optimize patient experience in the in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic and the role of genetic counselors.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chanouha Nour, Thoeny Renata, Summers Karen, Zorn Alithea, Duran Hakan, Schaa Kendra
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To understand factors influencing patient satisfaction with genetics education and psychosocial support in an IVF clinic without a genetic counselor (GC), and how the role of a GC may fill gaps in care using a mixed-method cross-sectional study.
METHODS: Previous IVF patients (n = 133) completed a survey assessing satisfaction with genetics education and psychosocial support and decisional conflict about genetic testing. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare satisfaction level to demographic and clinical variables. Spearman's correlation was used to analyze decisional conflict. Focus groups with 12 total participants expanded on themes identified in survey responses. Thematic analysis was performed using interpretive description.
RESULTS: Participants reported satisfaction with their genetics education experience (78.9% somewhat or extremely satisfied). Satisfaction with genetics education was associated with satisfaction with information received about genetic testing results (H = 21.3, p < 0.01) and confidence using results in future decisions (H = 9.9, p < 0.01). Participants desired thorough pre-test and post-test counseling regarding genetic testing and directive guidance. Decision conflict about genetic testing was low (mean of 22.3, range 0-100). Satisfaction with genetics education was inversely correlated with decisional conflict (rs = - 0.42, p < 0.05). In-person GC visit scored highest among proposed education methods (mean score of 84.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients felt satisfied with genetics education and psychosocial support provided by clinical providers. Gaps in care included misconceptions regarding genetic testing, a desire for more thorough counseling about genetic testing options, more directive guidance, and increased psychosocial support through external sources such as support groups.
METHODS: Previous IVF patients (n = 133) completed a survey assessing satisfaction with genetics education and psychosocial support and decisional conflict about genetic testing. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare satisfaction level to demographic and clinical variables. Spearman's correlation was used to analyze decisional conflict. Focus groups with 12 total participants expanded on themes identified in survey responses. Thematic analysis was performed using interpretive description.
RESULTS: Participants reported satisfaction with their genetics education experience (78.9% somewhat or extremely satisfied). Satisfaction with genetics education was associated with satisfaction with information received about genetic testing results (H = 21.3, p < 0.01) and confidence using results in future decisions (H = 9.9, p < 0.01). Participants desired thorough pre-test and post-test counseling regarding genetic testing and directive guidance. Decision conflict about genetic testing was low (mean of 22.3, range 0-100). Satisfaction with genetics education was inversely correlated with decisional conflict (rs = - 0.42, p < 0.05). In-person GC visit scored highest among proposed education methods (mean score of 84.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients felt satisfied with genetics education and psychosocial support provided by clinical providers. Gaps in care included misconceptions regarding genetic testing, a desire for more thorough counseling about genetic testing options, more directive guidance, and increased psychosocial support through external sources such as support groups.