Search

STUDY QUESTION What do fertility staff and patients think is bad news in fertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER Staff and patients agree bad news is any news that makes patients less likely to achieve parenthood spontaneously or access and do successful treatment, but their appraisals of how bad the news is are differently influenced by specific news features and the context of its delivery. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Bad news is common in fertility care, but staff feel unprepared to share it and four in 10 patients react to it with unanticipated emotional or physical reactions. Research has paid much attention to how bad news should be shared, but considerably less to what news is perceived as bad, despite the fact this may dictate elements of its delivery. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Two cross-sectional, online, mixed-method surveys (active 7 January–16 July 2022) were distributed to fertility staff and patients across the UK and Europe. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Staff inclusion criteria were being a healthcare professional working in fertility care and having experience of sharing bad news at least once a month. Patients' inclusion criteria were being adults and having had a conversation in which staff shared or explained bad news concerning their fertility care within the last 2 months. Surveys were created in English using Qualtrics, reviewed by patients and healthcare professionals, and distributed via social media, Prolific, fertility organizations, and scientific societies. Patients were asked, regarding the last time bad news were shared with them, 'What was the bad news?' and 'What other news would you consider bad news in fertility care?'. Staff were asked to 'List the three most challenging topics of bad news you share with your patients'. Staff and patient data were separately thematically analysed to produce basic codes, organized into sub-themes and themes. Themes emerging from patients' and staff data were compared and synthesized into meta themes. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Three hundred thirty-four staff accessed the survey, 286 consented, and 217 completed (65% completion rate). Three hundred forty-four patients accessed the survey, 304 consented, and 222 completed (64% completion rate). Eighty-five percent of participants were women, 62% resided in Europe, and 59% were in private care. Average staff age was 45.2 (SD = 12.0), 44% were embryologists or lab technicians, 40% were clinicians (doctors, consultants, or physicians), and 8% nurses or midwifes. Average patient age was 32.2 (SD = 6.4) and 54% had children. Staff answers originated 100 codes, 19 sub-themes and six themes. Patients' answers produced 196 codes, 34 sub-themes, and 7 themes. Staff and patient themes were integrated into three meta-themes reflecting main topics of bad news. These were Diagnosis and negative treatment events and outcomes, Inability to do (more) treatment, and Care and patient factors disrupting communication. Staff and patients agreed that some news features (uncertain, disruptive, definitive) made news more challenging but disagreed in relation to other features (e.g. unexpected/expected). Patient factors made bad news more challenging to staff (e.g. difficult emotions) and care factors made bad news more challenging to patients (e.g. disorganized care). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Participants were self-selected, and most were women from private European clinics. Questions differed for staff and patients, focused on subjective perceptions of news, and did not measure news impact. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The badness of fertility news is not only a product of the extent to which the news compromises parenthood goals but also of its features (timing, nature, number) and the context in which the news is delivered. Guidance on sharing bad news in fertility care needs to go beyond easing the process for patients to also consider staff experiences. Guidance may need to be tailored to news features and context. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Cardiff University funded the research. S.G. J.B. O'.H. and A.D. report funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) to develop fertiShare: a sharing bad news eLearning course for fertility care. fertiShare will be distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). No other conflicts are reported in relation to this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Is it possible to design an ART Treatment Planning and Continuation Intervention (TPCI) that is considered acceptable and feasible to patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs)? SUMMARY ANSWER HCPs and patients responded positively to the TPCI prototype and perceived it as an acceptable intervention to support patients to stay engaged with planned treatment, but some concerns were raised about the feasibility of using it in practice. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY People discontinue ART due to its psychological burden. Digital tools to support people undergoing ART are available but typically focus only on practical support rather than psychological support. Research about treatment continuation and multi-cycle planning indicates that cognitive factors (expectations, intentions, efficacy beliefs) should be targets of interventions designed to help patients engage with and continue treatment to meet their personal treatment plans and goals. However, it is not known whether this form of psychological support would be acceptable for HCPs and patients or feasible to implement in practice. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Qualitative cognitive interviews with HCPs and patients (May 2021). Patients were eligible if they had had a consultation to start a first/repeat stimulated IVF/ICSI cycle in the 8 weeks prior to recruitment, were aged 18 or older (upper age limit of 42 years for women) and fluent in English. Eligible HCPs were those employed by a fertility clinic who were responsible for delivering treatment planning consultations to patients. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS HCPs and patients were asked to think aloud while being exposed to and exploring the TPCI in one-to-one online cognitive interviews. The TPCI was designed to reduce treatment discontinuation via cognitive factors namely formation and maintenance of multi-cycle ART intentions and efficiency of decision-making during treatment, and continuation of treatment after an unsuccessful cycle (when recommended). To impact cognitive factors the TPCI comprised of two components: an expectation management and reasoning checklist for HCPs to use during planning consultations (TPCI Checklist) and a multi-feature cognitive support mobile application (TPCI App) for patients to use prior to and during treatment. After participants thought aloud while being exposed to the TPCI prototype (both components) they were asked open questions concerning their perceptions of the core components and activities on eight acceptability dimensions (e.g. acceptability, demand, integration). Interviews lasted between 40 and 90 min, were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Thirteen HCPs and 13 patients participated in 25 online interviews. Thematic analysis using inductive and deductive coding generated 180 codes, grouped into 22 categories and synthesized into 9 themes. The themes showed that HCPs and patients provided positive feedback about the TPCI, perceiving it as a needed, acceptable and potentially effective way to forewarn patients of the possible need for multiple cycles, to provide patients with a sense of patient–clinic collaboration and support, and to bolster treatment intentions, all of which were perceived to contribute to reduced treatment discontinuation. HCPs perceived implementation of the TPCI Checklist to be challenging in its current length due to time pressures and clinic workload. Suggestions for enhancing the TPCI Checklist and App were provided, but none required critical changes to its core components or activities. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION All patients were women recruited from social media websites, mainly associated with patient support groups, who may be highly committed to their fertility treatment. HCPs were predominantly from private fertility clinics. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The findings suggest there is demand for digital support geared towards motivational aspects of undergoing ART. The TPCI is an acceptable support tool to meet that need according to HCPs responsible for delivering planning consultations and patients undergoing fertility treatment. Future research is needed to develop the prototype and examine the feasibility of implementation of the TPCI in clinics. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was financially supported by Merck Serono Ltd, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. 'Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy only before journal submission. The authors are fully responsible for the content of this manuscript, and the views and opinions described in the publication reflect solely those of the authors' J.B. reports personal fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck AB an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany, Theramex, Organon JJC, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, research grant from Merck Serono Ltd, grants from ESHRE outside the submitted work and that she is co-developer of Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) and MediEmo app. S.G. reports consultancy fees from TMRW Life Sciences and Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, speaker fees from Access Fertility, SONA-Pharm LLC, Meridiano Congress International and Gedeon Richter. C.H. declares no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Is it possible to develop a patient smartphone application for medically assisted reproduction (MAR) that is acceptable to patients and fertility staff?Summary Answer: Staff and patients responded positively to the MediEmo smartphone application, perceiving it to be acceptable and feasible to implement in a busy clinic.What Is Known Already: Digital tools are increasingly popular to provide practical, administrative and psychological support alongside medical treatments. Apps and other digital tools have been developed for use alongside MAR but there is very limited research on the development or acceptability and feasibility of these tools.Study Design, Size, Duration: Mixed methods research. This article outlines the development phase of the MediEmo smartphone app, which was guided by the Medical Research Council development framework for complex interventions. The resulting MediEmo app was then implemented into a single centre for MAR in the UK, acceptability evaluated and feasibility explored among 1106 potential participants undertaking IVF cycles.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Consultation and data collection took part at a single mid-sized urban fertility clinic. Development of the MediEmo smartphone application took place during 2013 to 2017. Implementation of the MediEmo took place from June 2017 to September 2020. The MediEmo app comprises three functions (six features) namely medication management (medication timeline, messaging), mood management (emotional tracking, coping support) and functional support (frequently asked questions, symptom checker). Data on age, fertility diagnosis, anti-Müllerian hormone level were collected about the users of the MediEmo in addition to MediEmo usage data and attitudes towards the MediEmo smartphone application.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Informed by the developmental process described, MediEmo is an app combining patient medication diary management and ease of integration into clinic systems with emotional support, emotional tracking and data capture. This study demonstrates acceptability and feasibility of MediEmo, with good uptake (79.8%), mood data sensitivity and reliability and positive feedback.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Single centre, small number of users in questionnaire studies.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The findings suggest smartphone apps can contribute to fertility care and that patient engagement is high. Evaluation of any apps introduced into clinical pathways should be encouraged to promote development of the most useful digital tools for fertility patients.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector. Outside of the submitted work, J.B. reports personal speaker fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck AB an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany, Theramex, MedThink China, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, grant from Merck Serono Ltd, outside the submitted work and that she is co-developer of Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) and MediEmo app; N.M and C.Y are minority shareholders and J.B.'s University (Cardiff University) owns one third of shares. None of the shareholders benefitted financially from MediEmo. I.R., C.H. and K.Y.B.N. declare no conflicts of interest.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Which success rates do female and male IVF patients expect, what determines their expectations and do patients reconsider their expectations after receiving a personal IVF prognosis at the expense of anxious reactions?Summary Answer: Female and male IVF patients have unrealistic high expectations which are positively associated with their dispositional optimism, and which are only reconsidered by patients receiving a less than average IVF prognosis, which leads to more anxious reactions in females.What Is Known Already: Female patients undergoing IVF are known to have unrealistic expectations of the success of their own IVF cycle. The available evidence suggests women expect above average performance of their fertility clinic and (family) reproductive systems. The association of gender and personality trait dispositional optimism, with expectations of IVF success and the impact of providing couples with their IVF prognosis have not been studied previously.Study Design, Size, Duration: A total of 148 partnered individuals participated in this prospective survey at two separate points in treatment: following oocyte aspiration (T1) and embryo transfer (T2) (2019-2020, participation rate = 85%). At the time of embryo transfer, gynaecologists provided couples with their IVF prognosis, calculated with the Adapted van Loendersloot model. Women and their male partners completed questionnaires independently and immediately following oocyte aspiration and embryo transfer.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Dispositional optimism ('LOT-R' questionnaire) and expectations of IVF success (numerical rating scale) were assessed in eligible couples commencing a 2nd-6th IVF cycle on T1. Expectations of IVF success and anxiety ('Spielberger State-Anxiety Inventory') were (re)assessed on T2. The inter-partner correlation of expectations of IVF success was examined. Linear mixed models examined hypothesized determinants of expectations of IVF success (T1) and explored (determinants of) whether participants reconsidered their expectations after receiving their IVF prognosis (T1-T2) and whether couple's IVF prognosis was associated with anxious reactions (T2).Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The mean of the IVF success rates expected by patients immediately after oocyte aspiration was 59.1% (±20.0), irrespective of gender (P = 0.077). Partners expectations of IVF success were moderately correlated (r = 0.483; P < 0.001). Expectations of IVF success were positively associated with the participant's dispositional optimism (P < 0.001) but were not associated with their partner's dispositional optimism, women's age and their previous (un)successful IVF experiences. Gynaecologists gave couples their calculated IVF prognosis ranging from 4.8% to 69.2% (mean = 30.9%) at the time of embryo transfer. Gender did not influence whether participants reconsidered their expectations after receiving their prognosis. In contrast to the subgroup (n = 78), who received at least an average IVF prognosis and that did not reconsider their expectations of IVF success, the subgroup (n = 70) receiving a below average IVF prognosis lowered their expectations of IVF success (interaction effect: P < 0.001) from 55% to 46%. A below average IVF prognosis was associated with anxious reactions in women but not in men (interaction effect: P = 0.011).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The study design and sample size were more optimal for examining hypothesized determinants of patient's expectations of IVF success than for studying the impact of sharing prognoses with patients. Whether (reconsidering) expectations influences IVF discontinuation rates and achieved live birth rates has yet to be followed-up.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Clinics are advised to offer patients the opportunity of receiving their IVF prognosis. Providing prognoses is in line with patient preferences and tempers the unrealistic high expectations of both partners in couples with a less than average prognosis. A sensitive communication style is indicated, as lower prognoses are associated with mild anxious reactions in women.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): E.A.F.D. holds a postdoctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation-Flanders (12H9819N) and this study was funded by the Research Council of the KU Leuven (C14/18/106; project of J.V., K.P. and E.A.F.D.) and as an investigator sponsored study of K.P. and E.A.F.D. by Merck nv/sa Belgium, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this study.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What are patients' and fertility staff views of talking about possible IVF/ICSI failure and need for multiple cycles in treatment planning?Summary Answer: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) typically plan treatment on a cycle-by-cycle basis but HCPs and patients see benefits in talking about possible IVF/ICSI failure and the consequent need for multiple cycles to better prepare patients for this possibility, to support them through treatment challenges and to foster a sense of collaboration with the clinic in achieving the shared goal of treatment success.What Is Known Already: Many patients need more than one round of IVF/ICSI stimulation to achieve their parenthood goals. About 60% of patients are willing to plan for multiple cycles of treatment in advance of treatment engagement. However, it is not clear how patients are informed about the high possibility of failure and the subsequent need for multiple cycles during their treatment planning consultations, and how approaches could be optimized.Study Design, Size, Duration: Qualitative focus groups with HCPs working at fertility clinics, patient advocates employed by patient charities (April 2020) and patients (July and August 2020). Patients were eligible if they had had a consultation to start a first/repeat stimulated IVF/ICSI cycle in the 8 weeks prior to participation, were aged 18 or older (upper age limit of 42 years for women), in heterosexual relationships and fluent in English. Eligible HCPs and patient advocates were those employed at a fertility clinic or charity, respectively.Participants/materials, Settings, Method: Focus group topic guides progressed from general questions about fertility consultations to if and how the possibility of treatment failure and need for multiple cycles was introduced and discussed in (attended/own) clinics. After, preferences regarding planning IVF/ICSI on a multi-cycle or cycle-by-cycle basis were explored. Focus groups were recorded, and recordings transcribed and analysed using framework analysis to identify shared, unique and incongruent themes across participant groups.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Twelve HCPs, 2 patient advocates and 10 patients participated in six semi-structured online focus group discussions. All patients were childless and had been trying to conceive for ∼3 years. Framework analysis generated four themes and one meta-theme across participant groups. The meta-theme showed planning IVF on a cycle-by-cycle basis is the norm at clinics and that this affects how treatment is planned and the acceptability of a shift towards planning for multiple cycles, which was perceived as beneficial despite some apprehension. The four themes were: (i) heterogeneity in information provision during treatment planning; (ii) the need for improved HCP-patient collaboration; (iii) the need to temper optimism about treatment success; and (iv) apprehension, benefits and preferences regarding multi-cycle planning.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Most patients were women from private fertility clinics with no previous treatment experience recruited from social media websites, mainly associated with patient support groups. Similarly, most HCPs were women from private fertility clinics.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The findings suggest that shifting from cycle-by-cycle to multi-cycle approaches in IVF planning is possible. Achieving this shift, like other shifts in IVF (e.g. single embryo transfer), is likely to require collaboration among all stakeholders (e.g. users, staff, policymakers, regulators) to ensure that costs and benefits are balanced through using appropriate benchmarks, avoiding deflating optimism, fostering a sense of collaboration and supporting patients through challenges of multi-cycle IVF.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This research is funded by an Investigator-Sponsor Noninterventional Study from Merck Serono Ltd (MS200059_0010), an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. 'Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy only before journal submission. The Authors are fully responsible for the content of this manuscript, and the views and opinions described in the publication reflect solely those of the authors'. Prof. J.B. reports personal fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck AB an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany, Theramex, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, grant from Merck Serono Ltd, outside the submitted work and that she is co-developer of Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) and MediEmo app. Dr S.G. reports consultancy fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Access Fertility and SONA-Pharm LLC, and grants from Merck Serono Ltd, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Dr C.H. declares no conflicts of interest.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]