Reducing decisional conflict in decisions about prenatal genetic testing: the impact of a dyadic intervention at the start of prenatal care.

OBJECTIVES: Decisional conflict and regret about prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic tests may have important consequences in the current pregnancy and for future reproductive decisions. Identifying mechanisms that reduce conflict associated with the decision to use or decline these options is necessary for optimal patient counseling. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making tool (NEST) at the beginning of prenatal care. Enrolled patients completed follow-up surveys at the time of testing (QTT) and in the second-third trimester (QFF), including the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). Total DCS scores were analyzed using a multivariate linear mixed-effect model. RESULTS: Of the total number of participants (n=502) enrolled, 449 completed the QTT and QFF surveys. The mean age of participants was 31.6±3.8, with most parous at the time of study participation (n=321; 71.7 %). Both the NEST (the intervention) and control groups had lower median total DCS scores at QFF (NEST 13.3 [1.7, 25.0] vs. control 16.7 [1.7, 25.0]; p=0.24) compared to QTT (NEST 20.8 [5.0, 25.0] vs. control 18.3 [3.3, 26.7]; p=0.89). Participants exposed to NEST had lower decisional conflict at QFF compared to control (ß -3.889; [CI -7.341, -0.437]; p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Using a shared decision-making tool at the start of prenatal care decreased decisional conflict regarding prenatal genetic testing. Such interventions have the potential to provide an important form of decision-making support for patients facing the unique type of complex and preference-based choices about the use of prenatal genetic tests.

Virtual prenatal visits associated with high measures of patient experience and satisfaction among average-risk patients: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Virtual visits have the potential to decrease barriers to prenatal care stemming from transportation, work, and childcare concerns. However, data regarding patient experience and satisfaction with virtual visits remain limited in obstetrics. To address this gap, we explore average-risk pregnant women's experiences with virtual visits and compare satisfaction with virtual vs. in-person visits as a secondary aim. METHODS: In this IRB-approved, prospective cohort study, we surveyed pregnant women after their first virtual visit between October 7, 2019 and March 20, 2020. Using heterogeneous purposive sampling, we identified a subset of respondents with diverse experiences and opinions for interviews. For comparison, Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) satisfaction data were collected after in-person visits during the study timeframe from a control cohort with the same prenatal providers. Logistic regression controlling for age, previous pregnancies, and prior live births compared satisfaction data between virtual and in-person visits. Other quantitative survey data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Free text survey responses and interview data were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Ninety five percent (n = 165/174) of surveys and 90% (n = 18/20) of interviews were completed. Most participants were Caucasian, married, and of middle to high income. 69% (114/165) agreed that their virtual appointment was as good as in-person; only 13% (21/165) disagreed. Almost all (148/165, 90%) would make another virtual appointment. Qualitative data highlighted ease of access, comparable provider-patient communication, confidence in care quality, and positive remote monitoring experiences. Recognizing these advantages but also inherent limitations, interviews emphasized interspersing telemedicine with in-person prenatal encounters. CAHPS responses after in-person visits were available for 60 patients. Logistic regression revealed no significant difference in three measures of satisfaction (p = 0.16, 0.09, 0.13) between virtual and in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk population, virtual prenatal visits provide a patient-centered alternative to traditional in-person encounters with high measures of patient experience and no significant difference in satisfaction. Obstetric providers should explore telemedicine to improve access - and, during the ongoing pandemic, to minimize exposures - using patients' experiences for guidance. More research is needed regarding virtual visits' medical quality, integration into prenatal schedules, and provision of equitable care for diverse populations.

Impact of Telehealth on the Delivery of Prenatal Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Study of the Barriers and Opportunities to Improve Health Care Communication in Discussions About Pregnancy and Prenatal Genetic Testing.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought significant changes in health care, specifically the accelerated use of telehealth. Given the unique aspects of prenatal care, it is important to understand the impact of telehealth on health care communication and quality, and patient satisfaction. This mixed methods study examined the challenges associated with the rapid and broad implementation of telehealth for prenatal care delivery during the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examined patients' perspectives, preferences, and experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim of supporting the development of successful models to serve the needs of pregnant patients, obstetric providers, and health care systems during this time. METHODS: Pregnant patients who received outpatient prenatal care in Cleveland, Ohio participated in in-depth interviews and completed the Coronavirus Perinatal Experiences-Impact Survey (COPE-IS) between January and December 2021. Transcripts were coded using NVivo 12, and qualitative analysis was used, an approach consistent with the grounded theory. Quantitative data were summarized and integrated during analysis. RESULTS: Thematic saturation was achieved with 60 interviews. We learned that 58% (35/60) of women had telehealth experience prior to their current pregnancy. However, only 8% (5/60) of women had used both in-person and virtual visits during this pregnancy, while the majority (54/60, 90%) of women participated in only in-person visits. Among 59 women who responded to the COPE-IS, 59 (100%) felt very well supported by their provider, 31 (53%) were moderately to highly concerned about their child's health, and 17 (29%) reported that the single greatest stress of COVID-19 was its impact on their child. Lead themes focused on establishing patient-provider relationships that supported shared decision-making, accessing the information needed for shared decision-making, and using technology effectively to foster discussions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Key findings indicated that participants felt in-person visits were more personal, established greater rapport, and built better trust in the patient-provider relationship as compared to telehealth visits. Further, participants felt they could achieve a greater dialogue and ask more questions regarding time-sensitive information, including prenatal genetic testing information, through an in-person visit. Finally, privacy concerns arose if prenatal genetic testing or general pregnancy conversations were to take place outside of the health care facility. CONCLUSIONS: While telehealth was recognized as an option to ensure timely access to prenatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic, it also came with multiple challenges for the patient-provider relationship. These findings highlighted the barriers and opportunities to achieve effective and patient-centered communication with the continued integration of telehealth in prenatal care delivery. It is important to address the unique needs of this population during the pandemic and as health care increasingly adopts a telehealth model.

The Impact of Outpatient Prenatal Care Visitor Restrictions on Pregnant Patients and Partners During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, several health care facilities enacted visitor restrictions to help reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 among patients, front-line workers in health care systems, and communities. The impact and burden of policy updates on visitor restrictions put forth by the COVID-19 pandemic can be seen on patients and families, most often in the acute care setting and skilled nursing facilities. Yet, the effects of visitor restrictions in the prenatal care setting were unknown. We conducted a study to investigate the impact of these policies on pregnant patients who received outpatient prenatal care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study to explore pregnant patients' experiences with prenatal health care delivery between May and July 2020. In-depth interviews were conducted with pregnant patients in the first and second trimester of pregnancy, who received their prenatal care at the onset of the pandemic in the United States. Results: Participants noted increased maternal concern, anxiety, and mental health concerns stemming from the lack of in-person partner support. They noted disappointment and lost experiences for the patient during pregnancy, seeking support from her partner during pregnancy, experiences felt to be critical for postpartum health and wellbeing. There was also concern about the negative impact of restrictions on prenatal care quality and experience. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the impact of visitor restrictions on patients' prenatal care experience and perception of health care quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future public health strategies should be individualized to different patient populations addressing knowledge, health literacy, and socioeconomic status, and developed in conjunction with pregnant patients as key stakeholders in the delivery of prenatal health care.

Decision-making for prenatal genetic screening: how will pregnant women navigate a growing number of aneuploidy and carrier screening options?

BACKGROUND: Prenatal genetic screens, including carrier screening (CS) and aneuploidy screening (AS), comprise an important component of reproductive healthcare delivery. Clinical practice guidelines emphasize the importance of informed decision-making and patient's preferences regarding the use of these screens. Yet, it is unclear how to achieve this ideal as prenatal genetic screening options rapidly become more complex and increasingly available to patients. With increased complexity and availability of reproductive testing options, decision-support strategies are critical to prepare patients to consider AS and/or CS. METHODS: A self-administered survey evaluated knowledge and decision-making preferences for expanded carrier (CS) and aneuploidy (AS) prenatal screening. The survey was administered to participants before their first prenatal visit to assess baseline decision-making needs and preference at the initiation of prenatal care. Analysis was approached as a descriptive process. RESULTS: Participants had similar familiarity with the concepts associated with AS compared to CS; mean knowledge scores for CS was 0.59 [possible range 0.00 to 1.00] and 0.55 for AS. Participants reported preferences to learn about a range of conditions, including those with severe or mild impact, childhood-onset, and adult-onset. Decision-making preference with respect to learning about the associated disease phenotypes for the contained on AS and CS panel shifted with the complexity of the panel, with a greater preference to learn about conditions post-test compared pre-test education as panels increased from 5 to 100 conditions. CONCLUSION: Patients' baseline knowledge of prenatal genetic screens coupled with evolving decision-making preferences presents challenges for the delivery of prenatal genetic screens. This calls for the development and implementation of innovative approaches to support pregnant patients' decision-making commensurate with advances in prenatal genomics.

Uterus transplantation: state of the art in 2021.

PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive review of uterus transplantation in 2021, including a discussion of pregnancy outcomes of all reported births to date, the donor and recipient selection process, the organ procurement and transplant surgeries, reported complications, postoperative monitoring, preimplantation preparation, and ethical considerations. METHODS: Literature review and expert commentary. RESULTS: Reports of thirty-one live births following uterus transplantation have been published from both living and deceased donors. The proper selection of donors and recipients is a labor-intensive process that requires advanced planning. A multidisciplinary team is critical. Reported complications in the recipient include thrombosis, infection, vaginal stricture, antenatal complications, and graft failure. Graft rejection is a common occurrence but rarely leads to graft removal. While most embryo transfers are successful, recurrent implantation failures in uterus transplant patients have been reported. Rates of preterm delivery are high but appear to be declining; more data, including long-term outcome data, is needed. CONCLUSIONS: Uterus transplantation is an emerging therapy for absolute uterine factor infertility, a condition previously without direct treatment options. It is paramount that reproductive health care providers are familiar with the uterus transplantation process as more patients seek and receive this treatment.

The impact of the emergence of COVID-19 on women's prenatal genetic testing decisions.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a study to examine the impact of COVID on patients' access and utilization of prenatal genetic screens and diagnostic tests at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with 40 patients to examine how the pandemic affected prenatal genetic screening and diagnostic testing decisions during the initial months of the pandemic in the United States. An interview guide queried experiences with the ability to access information about prenatal genetic testing options and to utilize the tests when desired. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded using NVivo 12. Analysis was conducted using Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The pandemic did not alter most participants' decisions to undergo prenatal genetic testing. Yet, it did impact how participants viewed the risks and benefits of testing and timing of testing. There was heightened anxiety among those who underwent testing, stemming from the risk of viral exposure and the fear of being alone if pregnancy loss or fetal abnormality was identified at the time of an ultrasound-based procedure. CONCLUSION: The pandemic may impact patients' access and utilization of prenatal genetic tests. More research is needed to determine how best to meet pregnant patients' decision-making needs during this time.

Making the most of the first prenatal visit: The challenge of expanding prenatal genetic testing options and limited clinical encounter time.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in prenatal genetics place additional challenges as patients must receive information about a growing array of screening and testing options. This raises concerns about how to achieve a shared decision-making process that prepares patients to make an informed decision about their choices about prenatal genetic screening and testing options, calling for a reconsideration of how healthcare providers approach the first prenatal visit. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 40 pregnant women to identify components of decision-making regarding prenatal genetic screens and tests at this visit. Analysis was approached using grounded theory. RESULTS: Participants brought distinct notions of risk to the visit, including skewed perceptions of baseline risk for a fetal genetic condition and the implications of screening and testing. Participants were very concerned about financial considerations associated with these options, ranking out-of-pocket costs on par with medical considerations. Participants noted diverging priorities at the first visit from those of their healthcare provider, leading to barriers to shared decision-making regarding screening and testing during this visit. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to determine how to restructure the initiation of prenatal care in a way that best positions patients to make informed decisions about prenatal genetic screens and tests.

First birth from a deceased donor uterus in the United States: from severe graft rejection to successful cesarean delivery.

Uterus transplantation is the only known potential treatment for absolute uterine factor infertility. It offers a unique setting for the investigation of immunologic adaptations of pregnancy in the context of the pharmacologic-induced tolerance of solid organ transplants, thus providing valuable insights into the early maternal-fetal interface. Until recently, all live births resulting from uterus transplantation involved living donors, with only 1 prior birth from a deceased donor. The Cleveland Clinic clinical trial of uterus transplantation opened in 2015. In 2017, a 35 year old woman with congenital absence of the uterus was matched to a 24 year old parous deceased brain-dead donor. Transplantation of the uterus was performed with vaginal anastomosis and vascular anastomoses bilaterally from internal iliac vessels of the donor to the external iliac vessels of the recipient. Induction and maintenance immunosuppression were achieved and subsequently modified in anticipation of pregnancy 6 months after transplant. Prior to planned embryo transfer, ectocervical biopsy revealed ulceration and a significant diffuse, plasma cell-rich mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate, with histology interpreted as grade 3 rejection suspicious for an antibody-mediated component. Aggressive immunosuppressive regimen targeting both cellular and humoral rejection was initiated. After 3 months of treatment, there was no histologic evidence of rejection, and after 3 months from complete clearance of rejection, an uneventful embryo transfer was performed and a pregnancy was established. At 21 weeks, central placenta previa with accreta was diagnosed. A healthy neonate was delivered by cesarean hysterectomy at 34 weeks' gestation. In summary, this paper highlights the first live birth in North America resulting from a deceased donor uterus transplant. This achievement underscores the capacity of the transplanted uterus to recover from a severe, prolonged rejection and yet produce a viable neonate. This is the first delivery from our ongoing clinical trial in uterus transplantation, including the first reported incidence of severe mixed cellular/humoral rejection as well as the first reported placenta accreta.

Evolving ethical issues with advances in uterus transplantation.

While uterus transplantation was once considered only a theoretical possibility for patients with uterine factor infertility, researchers have now developed methods of transplantation that have led to successful pregnancies with multiple children born to date. Because of the unique and significant nature of this type of research, it has been undertaken with collaboration not only with scientists and physicians but also with bioethicists, who paved the initial path for research of uterus transplantation to take place. As the science of uterus transplantation continues to advance, so too must the public dialogue among obstetrician/gynecologists, transplant surgeons, bioethicists, and other key stakeholders in defining the continued direction of research in addition to planning for the clinical implementation of uterus transplantation as a therapeutic option. Given the rapid advances in this field, the time has come to revisit the fundamental questions raised at the inception of uterus transplantation and, looking forward, determine the future of this approach given emerging data on the procedure's impact on individuals, families, and society.

Patient-Centered Outcomes After Modified Vestibulectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patient outcomes after modified vestibulectomy for vulvodynia. METHODS: This is a mixed-methods study of patients who had undergone modified vestibulectomy for vulvodynia at a tertiary care hospital from 2009 through 2016. Demographics, preoperative and postoperative examinations, symptoms, and treatments were obtained through retrospective review. Prospective semistructured interviews were conducted from 2018 through 2019 to address patient-reported changes in pain and sexual function. Qualitative analysis was performed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent modified vestibulectomy from 2009 through 2016. Age ranged from 22 to 65 years and mean body mass index was 24.3±5.4. The majority of patients were premenopausal (57%), sexually active (68%), and partnered (76%). Postoperatively, data on pain improvement were retrieved on 18 patients, of which 17 (94%) reported improvement. Patients used pelvic floor physical therapy, medications, and lubricants both preoperatively and postoperatively. For the qualitative analysis, thematic saturation was achieved with 14 interviews. Of 14 participants interviewed, 13 (93%) reported improvement with pain after surgery, 11 (79%) reported satisfaction with surgery, 8 (57%) reported satisfaction with sexual function, and 11 (79%) reported recommending the surgery to others. The following lead themes were identified: vulvodynia symptoms significantly affect quality of life; there is difficulty and delay in diagnosis owing to lack of information and awareness among patients and health care providers; and surgical success and satisfaction are influenced by patient perceptions with sexual dysfunction often persisting despite vulvar pain improvement. CONCLUSION: Vulvodynia patients report improvement in pain and high overall satisfaction after modified vestibulectomy, but more variable long-term effects on sexual function.

The personal utility of cfDNA screening: Pregnant patients' experiences with cfDNA screening and views on expanded cfDNA panels.

Prenatal cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA) provides more genetic risk information about the fetus than has ever been possible. At the same time, the rapid expansion of new cfDNA panels raises important questions about how to structure patient-centered discussions that best support patients' decision-making about its use. To address this question, we conducted interviews with pregnant patients to identify decision-making needs and preferences with respect to cfDNA in patient-centered healthcare discussions, given its evolving capability to identify a range of fetal variants. Personal utility was a core concept guiding decision-making. Participants spoke of how their deeply personal values and beliefs about maternal responsibility, actionability, and tolerance of uncertainty framed their view of the personal utility of cfDNA screening. While discussing their notions of personal utility with their healthcare provider, participants also had concerns about potential ramifications for the provider-patient relationship and shared decision-making when disclosing values and preferences regarding disability, quality of life, and termination-particularly as it becomes possible to identify variants with different disease-associated severity and outcomes. The complexities associated with the introduction of genomics in prenatal care present unique challenges to structuring effective shared decision-making discussions between patients and their healthcare providers. While efforts are underway to determine how to best educate patients about the medical aspects of cfDNA, it is equally important to develop approaches in healthcare communication that enable patients to make informed, values-based decisions about the use of cfDNA and its impact on their pregnancy.

Prioritizing Women's Health in Germline Editing Research.

Although women are inextricably involved in the study of germline editing, their interests have not been significantly represented in debates about the evolution of genome editing technology. Discussions have taken place about effects of germline editing on women as parents and members of families, but key discussions about women's health and well-being as patients and subjects are lacking. This neglect is due in part to restrictions on uterine transfer of modified human embryos, a boundary that has now been crossed. As a result, only scant discussion has taken place about safeguards needed to ensure that women who participate in germline modification research are not exposed to disproportionate risk in exchange for benefits they might expect for future offspring. This omission sets the stage for serious ethical implications for women and their families.