Prenatal diagnosis · 2022
Disparities in the acceptance of chromosomal microarray at the time of prenatal genetic diagnosis.
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.
Swanson Kate, Loeliger Kelsey B, Chetty Shilpa P, Sparks Teresa N, Norton Mary E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Chromosomal microarray (CMA) increases the diagnostic yield of prenatal genetic diagnostic testing but is not universally performed. Our objective was to identify provider and patient characteristics associated with the acceptance of CMA at the time of prenatal genetic diagnostic testing.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing prenatal genetic diagnostic testing (chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis) at a single institution between 2014 and 2020. Primary outcome was the acceptance of CMA based on the genetic counselor ,GC who saw the patient. Secondary analyses assessed patient characteristics associated with the acceptance of CMA.
RESULTS: 2372 participants were included. Fifty-eight percent of participants accepted CMA. Acceptance of CMA varied significantly by GC, ranging from 31% to 90%. Patients with public insurance and those who identified as Black or Hispanic/Latina were less likely to have CMA performed (aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20-0.30, and 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.92). Even among those with a structural anomaly present, public insurance was associated with significantly lower odds of CMA being performed (aOR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.61).
CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of CMA at the time of prenatal genetic diagnostic testing varied based on the GC performing the counseling. Public insurance was associated with lower frequency of accepting CMA.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing prenatal genetic diagnostic testing (chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis) at a single institution between 2014 and 2020. Primary outcome was the acceptance of CMA based on the genetic counselor ,GC who saw the patient. Secondary analyses assessed patient characteristics associated with the acceptance of CMA.
RESULTS: 2372 participants were included. Fifty-eight percent of participants accepted CMA. Acceptance of CMA varied significantly by GC, ranging from 31% to 90%. Patients with public insurance and those who identified as Black or Hispanic/Latina were less likely to have CMA performed (aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20-0.30, and 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.92). Even among those with a structural anomaly present, public insurance was associated with significantly lower odds of CMA being performed (aOR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.61).
CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of CMA at the time of prenatal genetic diagnostic testing varied based on the GC performing the counseling. Public insurance was associated with lower frequency of accepting CMA.