Search

Evidence suggests that one reason doctors provide certain interventions in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) is because of patient demand. This is particularly the case when it comes to unproven interventions such as 'add‐ons' to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, or providing IVF cycles that are highly unlikely to succeed. Doctors tend to accede to demands for such interventions because patients are willing to do and pay 'whatever it takes' to have a baby. However, there is uncertainty as to what moral weight should be placed on patient‐led demands in ART, including whether it is acceptable for such demands to be invoked as a justification for intervention. We address this issue in this paper. We start by elucidating what we mean by 'patient‐led demand' and synthesise some of the evidence for this phenomenon. We then argue that a doctor's professional role morality (PRM) yields special responsibilities, particularly in commercialised healthcare settings such as ART, because of the nature of professions as social institutions that are distinct from markets. We argue on this basis that, while there may be reasons (consistent with PRM) for doctors to accede to patient demand, this is not always the case. There is often a gap in justification between acceding to patient‐led demands and providing contested interventions, particularly in commercial settings. As a result, acceding to demand in such settings needs a strong justification to be consistent with PRM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThere is increasing information characterizing menstrual cycle length in women, but less information is available on the potential differences across lifestyle variables. ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe differences in menstrual cycle length, variability, and menstrual phase across women of different ages and BMI among a global cohort of Flo app users. We have also reported on demographic and lifestyle characteristics across median cycle lengths. MethodsThe analysis was run based on the aggregated anonymized dataset from a menstrual cycle tracker and ovulation calendar that covers all phases of the reproductive cycle. Self-reported information is documented, including demographics, menstrual flow and cycle length, ovulation information, and reproductive health and diseases. Data from women aged ≥18 years and who had logged at least three cycles (ie, 2 completed cycles and 1 current cycle) in the Flo app were included (1,579,819 women). ResultsOf the 1.5 million users, approximately half (638,683/1,579,819, 40.42%) were aged between 18 and 24 years. Just over half of those reporting BMIs were in the normal range (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 202,420/356,598, 56.76%) and one-third were overweight or obese (>25 kg/m2; 120,983/356,598, 33.93%). A total of 16.32% (257,889/1,579,819) of women had a 28-day median cycle length. There was a higher percentage of women aged ≥40 years who had a 27-day median cycle length than those aged between 18 and 24 years (22,294/120,612, 18.48% vs 60,870/637,601, 9.55%), but a lower percentage with a 29-day median cycle length (10,572/120,612, 8.77% vs 79,626/637,601, 12.49%). There were a higher number of cycles with short luteal phases in younger women, whereas women aged ≥40 years had a higher number of cycles with longer luteal phases. Median menstrual cycle length and the length of the follicular and luteal phases were not remarkably different with increasing BMI, except for the heaviest women at a BMI of ≥50 kg/m2. ConclusionsOn a global scale, we have provided extensive evidence on the characteristics of women and their menstrual cycle length and patterns across different age and BMI groups. This information is necessary to support updates of current clinical guidelines around menstrual cycle length and patterns for clinical use in fertility programs.

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended assessment and management of those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and consumer preference? SUMMARY ANSWER International evidence-based guidelines address prioritized questions and outcomes and include 254 recommendations and practice points, to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes in PCOS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The 2018 International PCOS Guideline was independently evaluated as high quality and integrated multidisciplinary and consumer perspectives from six continents; it is now used in 196 countries and is widely cited. It was based on best available, but generally very low to low quality, evidence. It applied robust methodological processes and addressed shared priorities. The guideline transitioned from consensus based to evidence-based diagnostic criteria and enhanced accuracy of diagnosis, whilst promoting consistency of care. However, diagnosis is still delayed, the needs of those with PCOS are not being adequately met, evidence quality was low and evidence-practice gaps persist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline update reengaged the 2018 network across professional societies and consumer organizations, with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Extensive evidence synthesis was completed. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREEII)-compliant processes were followed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength and diversity and inclusion were considered throughout. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS This summary should be read in conjunction with the full Guideline for detailed participants and methods. Governance included a six-continent international advisory and management committee, five guideline development groups, and paediatric, consumer, and translation committees. Extensive consumer engagement and guideline experts informed the update scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included paediatrics, endocrinology, gynaecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, obesity care, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis, statisticians and translation experts. Thirty-nine professional and consumer organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty meetings and five face-to-face forums over 12 months addressed 58 prioritized clinical questions involving 52 systematic and 3 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus across five guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, independently reviewed for methodological rigour, and approved by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS has generally improved in the past five years, but remains of low to moderate quality. The technical evidence report and analyses (∼6000 pages) underpins 77 evidence-based and 54 consensus recommendations, with 123 practice points. Key updates include: i) further refinement of individual diagnostic criteria, a simplified diagnostic algorithm and inclusion of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels as an alternative to ultrasound in adults only; ii) strengthening recognition of broader features of PCOS including metabolic risk factors, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnea, very high prevalence of psychological features, and high risk status for adverse outcomes during pregnancy; iii) emphasizing the poorly recognized, diverse burden of disease and the need for greater healthcare professional education, evidence-based patient information, improved models of care and shared decision making to improve patient experience, alongside greater research; iv) maintained emphasis on healthy lifestyle, emotional wellbeing and quality of life, with awareness and consideration of weight stigma; and v) emphasizing evidence-based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Overall, recommendations are strengthened and evidence is improved, but remains generally low to moderate quality. Significantly greater research is now needed in this neglected, yet common condition. Regional health system variation was considered and acknowledged, with a further process for guideline and translation resource adaptation provided. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The 2023 International Guideline for the Assessment and Management of PCOS provides clinicians and patients with clear advice on best practice, based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the Guideline with an integrated evaluation program. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This effort was primarily funded by the Australian Government via the National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (APP1171592), supported by a partnership with American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Endocrine Society, European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, and European Society for Endocrinology. The Commonwealth Government of Australia also supported Guideline translation through the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFCRI000266). HJT and AM are funded by NHMRC fellowships. JT is funded by a Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) fellowship. Guideline development group members were volunteers. Travel expenses were covered by the partnering organizations. Disclosures of interest were strictly managed according to NHMRC policy and are available with the full guideline, technical evidence report, peer review and responses (www.monash.edu/medicine/mchri/pcos). Of named authors HJT, CTT, AD, LM, LR, JBoyle, AM have no conflicts of interest to declare. JL declares grant from Ferring and Merck; consulting fees from Ferring and Titus Health Care; speaker's fees from Ferring; unpaid consultancy for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics and Ansh Labs; and sits on advisory boards for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics, Ansh Labs, and Gedeon Richter. TP declares a grant from Roche; consulting fees from Gedeon Richter and Organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; travel support from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; unpaid consultancy for Roche Diagnostics; and sits on advisory boards for Roche Diagnostics. MC declares travels support from Merck; and sits on an advisory board for Merck. JBoivin declares grants from Merck Serono Ltd.; consulting fees from Ferring B.V; speaker's fees from Ferring Arzneimittell GmbH; travel support from Organon; and sits on an advisory board for the Office of Health Economics. RJN has received speaker's fees from Merck and sits on an advisory board for Ferring. AJoham has received speaker's fees from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim. The guideline was peer reviewed by special interest groups across our 39 partner and collaborating organizations, was independently methodologically assessed against AGREEII criteria and was approved by all members of the guideline development groups and by the NHMRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Elective egg freezing decisions are complex. We developed a Decision Aid for elective egg freezing and conducted a phase 1 study to evaluate its acceptability and utility for decision-making. Methods: The online Decision Aid was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards and evaluated using a pre/post survey design. Twenty-six Australian women aged 18–45 years, interested in receiving elective egg freezing information, proficient in English, and with access to the internet were recruited using social media and university newsletters. Main outcomes were: acceptability of the Decision Aid; feedback on the Decision Aid design and content; concern raised by the Decision Aid, and; utility of the Decision Aid as measured by scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale and on a study-specific scale assessing knowledge about egg freezing and age-related infertility. Results: Most participants found the Decision Aid acceptable (23/25), balanced (21/26), useful for explaining their options (23/26), and for reaching a decision (18/26). Almost all reported satisfaction with the Decision Aid (25/26) and the level of guidance it provided (25/26). No participant reported serious concerns about the Decision Aid, and most would recommend it to other women considering elective egg freezing (22/26). Median Decisional Conflict Scale score decreased from 65/100 (Interquartile range: 45–80) pre-Decision Aid to 7.5/100 (Interquartile range: 0–37.5) post-Decision Aid review (p < 0.001). Median knowledge score increased from 8.5/14 (Interquartile range: 7–11) pre-Decision Aid to 11/14 (Interquartile range: 10–12) post-Decision Aid review (p = 0.01). Conclusion: This elective egg freezing Decision Aid appears acceptable and useful for decision-making. It improved knowledge, reduced decisional conflict and did not raise serious concerns. The Decision Aid will be further evaluated using a prospective randomised control trial. Study registration: ACTRN12618001685202 (retrospectively registered: 12 October 2018). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]