MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4386102021 · doi:10.1016/j.xfre.2023.08.006

Challenges experienced by genetic counselors while they provided counseling about mosaic embryos

2023· article· en· W4386102021 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Olivia Moran, Kayla Flamenbaum, Diane Myles Reid, Jeanna McCuaig, Riyana Babul‐Hirji, David Chitayat, Maian Roifman

Notice bibliographique

RevueF&S Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Établissements canadiensOttawa Fertility CentreMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMosaicGenetic counselingPsychologyGeneticsBiologyHistoryArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ObjectiveTo survey genetic counselors (GCs) who have counseled about mosaic embryos regarding the challenges they faced in counseling this patient population and assess their need for more resources to support their practice.DesignSelf-administered online survey.SettingAcademic university.Study PopulationSeventy-eight GCs primarily from the United States and Canada.Intervention(s)Genetic counselors completed a quantitative survey with an embedded qualitative component. Quantitative data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. An inductive thematic analysis was performed on open-text responses.Main Outcome Measure(s)Genetic counselors were asked what clinical activities relating to mosaic embryos they performed. They were then asked to rate how challenging each activity was to perform using a 5-point scale; a rating of 4 or 5 was defined as highly challenging. Open-text questions enabled GCs to describe factors that they felt contributed to these challenges.Result(s)The challenges reported by GCs included the uncertainty of outcomes in offspring after mosaic embryo transfer, limited guidelines available to assist clinicians with counseling about mosaic embryos, and ranking mosaic embryos by suitability for transfer. The contributing factors suggested by participants included limited outcome data, limited GC involvement in pretest counseling for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), and perceived inconsistency in counseling practices across clinics. Genetic counselors differed in their genetic testing recommendations for pregnancies conceived after mosaic embryo transfer. Amniocentesis and postnatal assessment were recommended by 85% and 49% of GCs, respectively, and 15% recommended chorionic villus sampling and noninvasive prenatal testing. Almost all (92%) reported a need for more resources, such as standardized guidelines, more outcome data, and continuing education on PGT-A and mosaicism.Conclusion(s)This study describes challenges experienced by GCs while they counseled about mosaic embryos. Our findings demonstrate a need for more outcome data on mosaic embryo pregnancies and for evidence-based clinical guidelines. The differing recommendations for prenatal genetic testing among GCs in the study warrant further research into contributing factors. We strongly recommend that pretest counseling, including a discussion regarding mosaicism, is provided to all couples considering PGT-A to reduce counseling challenges and to promote patients’ informed decision-making. To survey genetic counselors (GCs) who have counseled about mosaic embryos regarding the challenges they faced in counseling this patient population and assess their need for more resources to support their practice. Self-administered online survey. Academic university. Seventy-eight GCs primarily from the United States and Canada. Genetic counselors completed a quantitative survey with an embedded qualitative component. Quantitative data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. An inductive thematic analysis was performed on open-text responses. Genetic counselors were asked what clinical activities relating to mosaic embryos they performed. They were then asked to rate how challenging each activity was to perform using a 5-point scale; a rating of 4 or 5 was defined as highly challenging. Open-text questions enabled GCs to describe factors that they felt contributed to these challenges. The challenges reported by GCs included the uncertainty of outcomes in offspring after mosaic embryo transfer, limited guidelines available to assist clinicians with counseling about mosaic embryos, and ranking mosaic embryos by suitability for transfer. The contributing factors suggested by participants included limited outcome data, limited GC involvement in pretest counseling for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), and perceived inconsistency in counseling practices across clinics. Genetic counselors differed in their genetic testing recommendations for pregnancies conceived after mosaic embryo transfer. Amniocentesis and postnatal assessment were recommended by 85% and 49% of GCs, respectively, and 15% recommended chorionic villus sampling and noninvasive prenatal testing. Almost all (92%) reported a need for more resources, such as standardized guidelines, more outcome data, and continuing education on PGT-A and mosaicism. This study describes challenges experienced by GCs while they counseled about mosaic embryos. Our findings demonstrate a need for more outcome data on mosaic embryo pregnancies and for evidence-based clinical guidelines. The differing recommendations for prenatal genetic testing among GCs in the study warrant further research into contributing factors. We strongly recommend that pretest counseling, including a discussion regarding mosaicism, is provided to all couples considering PGT-A to reduce counseling challenges and to promote patients’ informed decision-making.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,191
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,765

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueF&S ReportsMême sujetPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsTravaux en français237 207