Clinical endocrinology · 2024
Genomic testing for differences of sex development: Practices and perceptions of clinicians.
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.
Atlas Gabby, Hanna Chloe, Tan Tiong Yang, Nisselle Amy, Tucker Elena, Ayers Katie, Sinclair Andrew, O'Connell Michele A
Аннотация
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.
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.