Search

Item does not contain fulltext STUDY QUESTION: Based on the best available evidence in the literature, what is the optimal management of routine psychosocial care at infertility and medically assisted reproduction (MAR) clinics? SUMMARY ANSWER: Using the structured methodology of the Manual for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Guideline Development, 120 recommendations were formulated that answered the 12 key questions on optimal management of routine psychosocial care by all fertility staff. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: The 2002 ESHRE Guidelines for counselling in infertility has been a reference point for best psychosocial care in infertility for years, but this guideline needed updating and did not focus on routine psychosocial care that can be delivered by all fertility staff. STUDY, DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This guideline was produced by a group of experts in the field according to the 12-step process described in the ESHRE Manual for Guideline Development. After scoping the guideline and listing a set of 12 key questions in PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) format, thorough systematic searches of the literature were conducted; evidence from papers published until April 2014 was collected, evaluated for quality and analysed. A summary of evidence was written in a reply to each of the key questions and used as the basis for recommendations, which were defined by consensus within the guideline development group (GDG). Patient and additional clinical input was collected during the scoping and the review phase of the guideline development. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The guideline group, comprising psychologists, two medical doctors, a midwife, a patient representative and a methodological expert, met three times to discuss evidence and reach consensus on the recommendations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE THE GUIDELINE PROVIDES: 120 recommendations that aim at guiding fertility clinic staff in providing optimal evidence-based routine psychosocial care to patients dealing with infertility and MAR. The guideline is written in two sections. The first section describes patients' preferences regarding the psychosocial care they would like to receive at clinics and how this care is associated with their well-being. The second section of the guideline provides information about the psychosocial needs patients experience across their treatment pathway (before, during and after treatment) and how fertility clinic staff can detect and address these. Needs refer to conditions assumed necessary for patients to have a healthy experience of the fertility treatment. Needs can be behavioural (lifestyle, exercise, nutrition and compliance), relational (relationship with partner if there is one, family friends and larger network, and work), emotional (well-being, e.g. anxiety, depression and quality of life) and cognitive (treatment concerns and knowledge). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We identified many areas in care for which robust evidence was lacking. Gaps in evidence were addressed by formulating good practice points, based on the expert opinion of the GDG, but it is critical for such recommendations to be empirically validated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The evidence presented in this guideline shows that providing routine psychosocial care is associated with or has potential to reduce stress and concerns about medical procedures and improve lifestyle outcomes, fertility-related knowledge, patient well-being and compliance with treatment. As only 45 (36.0%) of the 125 recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the guideline group formulated recommendations to guide future research with the aim of increasing the body of evidence. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with literature searches, and with the implementation of the guideline. The GDG members did not receive payment. S.G., E.D., C.d.K., M.E., U.V.d.B., C.L.-J. and N.V. report no conflicts of interest. J.B. reports grants from Merck & Co, consulting fees from Merck Serono S.A. and Speaker's fees from Merck Serono S.A. P.T. reports consulting fees from the German government and being the Chair of the German Society for Fertility Counselling. C.V. reports consulting fees from Merck Serono S.A. C.M.V. reports being adviser in projects for Merck Serono S.A. and Ferring S.A. on patient educational material. T.W. reports speaker's fees from Repromed, DGPM, Breitbach, DAAG, fiore, LPTW, MSD, salary/position funding at TAB-beim-Bundestag, BZgA, and being the Vice-chair of the German Society for Fertility Counselling. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.

Contains fulltext : 110831.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that in decision contexts characterized by uncertainty and time constraints (e.g. health-care decisions), fast and frugal decision-making strategies (heuristics) may perform better than complex rules of reasoning. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether it is possible to design deliberation components in decision support interventions using simple models (fast and frugal heuristics). DESIGN: The 'Take The Best' heuristic (i.e. selection of a 'most important reason') and 'The Tallying' integration algorithm (i.e. unitary weighing of pros and cons) were used to develop two deliberation components embedded in a Web-based decision support intervention for women facing amniocentesis testing. Ten researchers (recruited from 15), nine health-care providers (recruited from 28) and ten pregnant women (recruited from 14) who had recently been offered amniocentesis testing appraised evolving versions of 'your most important reason' (Take The Best) and 'weighing it up' (Tallying). RESULTS: Most researchers found the tools useful in facilitating decision making although emphasized the need for simple instructions and clear layouts. Health-care providers however expressed concerns regarding the usability and clarity of the tools. By contrast, 7 out of 10 pregnant women found the tools useful in weighing up the pros and cons of each option, helpful in structuring and clarifying their thoughts and visualizing their decision efforts. Several pregnant women felt that 'weighing it up' and 'your most important reason' were not appropriate when facing such a difficult and emotional decision. CONCLUSION: Theoretical approaches based on fast and frugal heuristics can be used to develop deliberation tools that provide helpful support to patients facing real-world decisions about amniocentesis

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Although an increasing number of decision support interventions for patients (including decision aids) are produced, few make explicit use of theory. We argue the importance of using theory to guide design. The aim of this work was to address this theory-practice gap and to examine how a range of selected decision-making theories could inform the design and evaluation of decision support interventions. METHODS: We reviewed the decision-making literature and selected relevant theories. We assessed their key principles, theoretical pathways and predictions in order to determine how they could inform the design of two core components of decision support interventions, namely, information and deliberation components and to specify theory-based outcome measures. RESULTS: Eight theories were selected: (1) the expected utility theory; (2) the conflict model of decision making; (3) prospect theory; (4) fuzzy-trace theory; (5) the differentiation and consolidation theory; (6) the ecological rationality theory; (7) the rational-emotional model of decision avoidance; and finally, (8) the Attend, React, Explain, Adapt model of affective forecasting. Some theories have strong relevance to the information design (e.g. prospect theory); some are more relevant to deliberation processes (conflict theory, differentiation theory and ecological validity). None of the theories in isolation was sufficient to inform the design of all the necessary components of decision support interventions. It was also clear that most work in theory-building has focused on explaining or describing how humans think rather than on how tools could be designed to help humans make good decisions. It is not surprising therefore that a large theory-practice gap exists as we consider decision support for patients. There was no relevant theory that integrated all the necessary contributions to the task of making good decisions in collaborative interactions. DISCUSSION: Initiatives such as the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration influence standards for the design of decision support interventions. However, this analysis points to the need to undertake more work in providing theoretical foundations for these interventions.

Item does not contain fulltext

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine disorder in females, with a high prevalence. The etiology of this heterogeneous condition remains obscure, and its phenotype expression varies. Two widely cited previous ESHRE/ASRMsponsored PCOS consensus workshops focused on diagnosis (published in 2004) and infertility management (published in 2008), respectively. The present third PCOS consensus report summarizes current knowledge and identifies knowledge gaps regarding various women's health aspects of PCOS. Relevant topics addressed-all dealt with in a systematic fashion-include adolescence, hirsutism and acne, contraception, menstrual cycle abnormalities, quality of life, ethnicity, pregnancy complications, long-term metabolic and cardiovascular health, and finally cancer risk. Additional, comprehensive background information is provided separately in an extended online publication. (Fertil Steril (R) 2012;97:28-38. (C) 2012 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)