• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

支持遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌患者在生育决策时的需求。

Support needs of couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer during reproductive decision making.

机构信息

Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Psychooncology. 2018 Jul;27(7):1795-1801. doi: 10.1002/pon.4729. Epub 2018 May 4.

DOI:10.1002/pon.4729
PMID:29644780
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Reproductive decision making for couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is complex and can result in decisional conflict or regret. This study investigated couples' support needs and aimed to identify vulnerable couples. Ultimately, we should strive to develop a clear standard of care guideline regarding reproductive decision support.

METHODS

Mixed methods were used for data collection. A focus group study was conducted among 18 couples (N = 35) with HBOC who had made a reproductive decision after reproductive counselling. Subsequently, 129 similar couples (N = 258) were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey based on the focus group study.

RESULTS

Clinical and practical aspects of reproductive counselling were positively evaluated in the focus group study, although couples indicated a need for additional support with emotional and social concerns in which their relationship, social environment, and the way they picture their desired family were key elements. The survey was completed by 86 participants. Making a reproductive choice was experienced as (very) difficult by 43%, and 69% showed a need for additional support during decision making. Younger participants and those who opted for a natural pregnancy experienced more difficulty with reproductive decision making, and partners showed a higher need for psychological support than carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Couples with HBOC who need to make a reproductive decision have specific needs for guidance and support, of which the desired content and methods can vary. It is therefore important to identify vulnerable couples and to attune counselling to couples' needs.

摘要

目的

遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌(HBOC)患者的夫妻生育决策较为复杂,可能导致决策冲突或后悔。本研究调查了夫妻的支持需求,并旨在识别弱势夫妻。最终,我们应该努力制定明确的生育决策支持护理标准。

方法

采用混合方法进行数据收集。在接受生育咨询后做出生育决策的 18 对(N=35)HBOC 夫妻中进行了焦点小组研究。随后,根据焦点小组研究邀请了 129 对类似夫妻(N=258)完成横断面调查。

结果

焦点小组研究中对生育咨询的临床和实际方面给予了积极评价,尽管夫妻表示需要额外的支持来处理情感和社会问题,其中包括他们的关系、社会环境以及他们对理想家庭的描绘等关键因素。共有 86 名参与者完成了调查。43%的人表示做出生育选择非常困难,69%的人在决策过程中表示需要额外的支持。年轻的参与者和选择自然怀孕的参与者在生育决策方面遇到了更多的困难,伴侣比携带者更需要心理支持。

结论

需要做出生育决策的 HBOC 夫妻有特定的指导和支持需求,其内容和方法可能有所不同。因此,识别弱势夫妻并根据夫妻的需求调整咨询非常重要。

相似文献

1
Support needs of couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer during reproductive decision making.支持遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌患者在生育决策时的需求。
Psychooncology. 2018 Jul;27(7):1795-1801. doi: 10.1002/pon.4729. Epub 2018 May 4.
2
Decision-making on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and prenatal diagnosis: a challenge for couples with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.胚胎植入前基因诊断和产前诊断的决策:对遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌夫妇的一项挑战。
Hum Reprod. 2014 May;29(5):1103-12. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu034. Epub 2014 Mar 6.
3
Awareness and attitude regarding reproductive options of persons carrying a BRCA mutation and their partners.携带BRCA突变者及其伴侣对生殖选择的认知和态度。
Hum Reprod. 2017 Mar 1;32(3):588-597. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew352.
4
Recurrent miscarriage in translocation carriers: no differences in clinical characteristics between couples who accept and couples who decline PGD.易位携带者的复发性流产:接受和拒绝 PGD 的夫妇在临床特征上无差异。
Hum Reprod. 2015 Feb;30(2):484-9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu314. Epub 2014 Nov 28.
5
Factors influencing patients' decision-making about preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders.影响患者对单基因疾病植入前遗传学检测决策的因素。
Hum Reprod. 2022 Oct 31;37(11):2599-2610. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac185.
6
Attitudes to reproductive genetic testing in women who had a positive BRCA test before having children: a qualitative analysis.有生育孩子前 BRCA 检测阳性的女性对生殖遗传检测的态度:定性分析。
Eur J Hum Genet. 2012 Jan;20(1):4-10. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.146. Epub 2011 Aug 3.
7
Differences between women who pursued genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and their at-risk relatives who did not.进行遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌基因检测的女性与其未进行检测的高危亲属之间的差异。
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011 Sep;38(5):572-81. doi: 10.1188/11.ONF.572-581.
8
Views of BRCA gene mutation carriers on preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a reproductive option for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.BRCA基因突变携带者对胚胎植入前遗传学诊断作为遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌生殖选择的看法。
Hum Reprod. 2007 Jun;22(6):1573-7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem055. Epub 2007 Apr 11.
9
The development of an online decision aid to support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making: a usability and pilot study.开发一种在线决策辅助工具,以在生殖决策过程中支持有癌症遗传易感性的人群及其伴侣:一项可用性和试点研究。
Fam Cancer. 2019 Jan;18(1):137-146. doi: 10.1007/s10689-018-0092-4.
10
Psychometric testing of the decisional conflict scale: genetic testing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.决策冲突量表的心理测量学测试:遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌基因检测。
Nurs Res. 2011 Nov-Dec;60(6):368-77. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3182337dad.

引用本文的文献

1
Development and assessment of a knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) questionnaire for genetic counselees with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) indications.针对有植入前基因检测(PGT)指征的遗传咨询对象的知识、态度和行为(KAP)问卷的开发与评估。
Heliyon. 2024 Jul 23;10(15):e34945. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34945. eCollection 2024 Aug 15.
2
Attitudes toward genetic testing, family planning and preimplantation genetic testing in families with a germline CDKN2A pathogenic variant.携带种系CDKN2A致病变异的家庭对基因检测、计划生育和植入前基因检测的态度。
Fam Cancer. 2024 Aug;23(3):255-265. doi: 10.1007/s10689-024-00401-3. Epub 2024 Jun 1.
3
Feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes of a pilot intervention facilitating communication about family building between patients with inherited cancer risk and their partners.
一项试点干预措施促进遗传性癌症风险患者与其伴侣之间关于生育问题沟通的可行性、可接受性及结果
PEC Innov. 2022 Jun 1;1:100055. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100055. eCollection 2022 Dec.
4
Providers' perspectives on the reproductive decision-making of BRCA-positive women.提供者对 BRCA 阳性女性生殖决策的看法。
BMC Womens Health. 2022 Dec 8;22(1):506. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-02093-2.
5
Metacognitions associated with reproductive concerns: A cross-sectional study of young adult female cancer survivors in China.与生殖问题相关的元认知:中国年轻成年女性癌症幸存者的横断面研究
Front Psychol. 2022 Sep 27;13:987221. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987221. eCollection 2022.
6
The effects of an online decision aid to support the reproductive decision-making process of genetically at risk couples-A pilot study.在线决策辅助工具对支持遗传风险夫妇生殖决策过程的影响:一项试点研究。
J Genet Couns. 2023 Feb;32(1):153-165. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1631. Epub 2022 Sep 3.
7
Hereditary diseases and child wish: exploring motives, considerations, and the (joint) decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples.遗传性疾病与生育意愿:探究基因风险夫妇的动机、考量因素及(共同)决策过程
J Community Genet. 2021 Jul;12(3):325-335. doi: 10.1007/s12687-021-00510-x. Epub 2021 Feb 20.
8
Reproductive decision-making in the context of hereditary cancer: the effects of an online decision aid on informed decision-making.遗传性癌症背景下的生殖决策:在线决策辅助工具对知情决策的影响。
J Community Genet. 2021 Jan;12(1):101-110. doi: 10.1007/s12687-020-00484-2. Epub 2020 Sep 2.
9
Motives and considerations regarding PGT in couples carrying a structural chromosomal abnormality: a qualitative exploration.携带结构染色体异常的夫妇对 PGT 的动机和考虑因素:定性探索。
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Jul;37(7):1719-1727. doi: 10.1007/s10815-020-01810-w. Epub 2020 May 16.
10
The development of an online decision aid to support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making: a usability and pilot study.开发一种在线决策辅助工具,以在生殖决策过程中支持有癌症遗传易感性的人群及其伴侣:一项可用性和试点研究。
Fam Cancer. 2019 Jan;18(1):137-146. doi: 10.1007/s10689-018-0092-4.