Preferred problem solving and decision-making role in fertility treatment among women following an unsuccessful in vitro fertilization cycle

Emotional risk factors before in vitro fertilization among infertile couples in daily clinical practice in Sari in 2020-2022

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The relationship between psychological factors and treatment outcomes with assisted reproductive technology has sparked considerable debate. This study aims to investigate the emotional risk factors in couples seeking infertility treatment using assisted reproductive technology in Sari, Iran, from 2020 to 2022.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research is a cross-sectional study and emotional risk factors and other related factors were examined using the Persian version of the SCREENIVF demographic, social, and clinical status questionnaire, social, and clinical status questionnaire before using Assisted reproductive technology in 460 infertile couples selected from infertility treatment centers in Sari City, Iran. The samples were randomly selected using a table of random numbers. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 22 software.

RESULTS

The mean age of the male and female participants were 31.70 ± 5.71 and 35.22 ± 5.48, respectively. The results regarding emotional risk factors and other related factors revealed that the variables of remarriage (P = 0.048) and exposure of spouse to emotional risk factors (P = 0.001), history of depression disorder (P = 0.007), and history of anxiety disorder (P = 0.009) were significantly correlated with the exposure of women to emotional risk factors. Furthermore, men's exposure to emotional risk factors was significantly correlated with primary education (P = 0.026) and diploma (P = 0.043) levels, age (P = 0.006), and wife's exposure to emotional risk factors (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

By identifying infertile couples who are at risk of emotional risk factors, healthcare professionals can provide appropriate support and interventions to mitigate the emotional challenges associated with infertility. This proactive approach can significantly enhance couples undergoing infertility treatment's well-being and mental health.

Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others.

OUTCOMES

The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.

Patient and clinician perspectives on shared decision-making in infertility treatment: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the considerations and barriers to implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in infertility treatment among female infertility patients, their male spouses, and fertility clinicians.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from a reproductive medicine hospital in China's Shandong Province using purposive sampling. One-on-one interviews were held with female infertility patients and their spouses. In addition, a focus group discussion was conducted with fertility clinicians. Data analysis was subjected to open, axial, and selective coding.

RESULTS

Nineteen female infertility patients and 10 male spouses were interviewed one-on-one. Five clinicians participated in the focus group discussion. Most female patients wanted to participate in the decision-making process, and that spouses and fertility clinicians supported SDM. Furthermore, key barriers were identified from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, including communication difficulties, psychological pressure on female patients, patient preferences, multiple treatment stages, male spousal participation, clinician-patient trust, and subjective patient factors.

CONCLUSIONS/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study explored the considerations of and barriers to implementing SDM in infertility treatment. Key barriers were identified from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Based on the findings, clinicians should encourage patients and their spouses to actively participate in decision-making, and provide objective and realistic guidance.

Introducing the Hungarian Version of the SCREENIVF Tool into the Clinical Routine Screening of Emotional Maladjustment

Examining possible psychosocial maladjustments should be an integral part of fertility care. For the early detection of vulnerability, the present study aimed to adapt and test the reliability and validity of the Hungarian version of SCREENIVF against the Fertility Quality of Life Questionnaire (FertiQoL) in a cross-sectional on subfertile women (n = 60, age 34.6 ± 5.2 years, BMI 24.2 ± 4.9 kg/m2) at a university linked fertility clinic in South-Hungary. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to investigate the construct validity. For the reliability testing, Cronbach alpha values were calculated. Spearman’s rank correlation tested the criterion validity. Discriminant validity was applied using Mann−Whitney U-test and Kruskal−Wallis test. The Edinburgh Framework and COSMIN checklist were applicable for the analysis using SPSS 27.0; significance was set at p < 0.05. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit; all dimensions were reliable (α ≥ 0.70). Cronbach’s alpha was excellent (0.825−0.904). Strong correlations were found between the total scale (FertiQoL) and anxiety (R = −0.507, p < 0.001), depression (R = 0.554, p < 0.001), and helplessness cognitions (R = −0.747, p < 0.001) and moderate or no correlation with acceptance cognitions (R = 0.317, p = 0.015) and social support (R = 0.230, p = 0.082). The Hungarian version of SCREENIVF proved a valid and reliable tool to measure psychological maladjustment before ART. A longitudinal, randomized, controlled trial involving the partners could further strengthen the results, which is among our long-term plans.

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of doctor-patient interactions during andrological consultations

INTRODUCTION

Although a trustworthy connection between doctor and patient is crucial in clinical practice, it could be hindered by different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Moreover, an effective doctor-patient interaction could be even more challenging in andrological fields, in which psychological and social components are predominant.

AIM

To analyse the doctor-patient relationship in the andrological field, applying both qualitative and quantitative analyses.

METHODS

monocentric, cross-sectional, observational study was performed between May and December 2018. During the study, all patients aged >18 years attending the Modena Andrology Unit for couple infertility or erectile dysfunction were enrolled and the doctor-patients interaction recorded. Patients were divided into two groups depending on their medical seeking and were further divided between native and non-native speakers of Italian. All patients underwent a routine andrological examination. Every first medical consultation was audio-recorded and transcribed using "ELAN" software for socio-linguistic analysis. Transcriptions underwent qualitative analysis through conversation analysis. Then, quantitative analyses were performed, and interaction parameters underwent correlation analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were enrolled. The analysis of the andrological interview allowed to recognize five consecutive phases, following a semi-standardized pattern. Patients without linguistic barriers and with infertility problems showed more autonomous contribution during the consultation. No difference arose in sexual dysfunctions group. Doctor's explanations were frequent, but when linguistic barrier was present or Italian patients seemed less talkative, explanations were shorter, and doctors tried to use other conversational mechanisms to promote understanding. Patient's variables were significantly lower compared to the doctor, considering the number of turns (p = 0.025) and their minimum (p = 0.032), maximum (p<0.001), and average durations (p<0.001). Only patient's latency was significantly higher than the doctor's (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This is the first attempt to analyse the doctor-patient relationship in andrology using authentic audio-recorded consultations. The results confirmed that a patient-centred communication must be applied also in andrological consultations. However, the topics discussed may require more "medical formulation" to be acceptable to the participants in this context. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Perceptions of Fertility Physicians Treating Women Undergoing IVF Using an Egg Donation

In the course of their work, medical teams are routinely exposed to difficult and stressful situations. The few studies in the literature that have examined physicians’ perceptions and responses to such situations have focused primarily on the fields of emergency medicine and chronic and terminal illness. However, the field of fertility medicine can also evoke complex feelings among physicians. The present qualitative study examined the perceptions of fertility physicians treating women undergoing egg donation. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 fertility physicians, and a categorical analysis was performed. The main category to emerge was the physicians’ perception of egg donation and its implications. Two prominent themes were identified within this category: doctor–patient communication surrounding egg donation and how the idea was presented to the patient; and doctors’ perception of the implications of egg donation, including maternal identity, the relationship between mother and infant, and the mother’s sense of the child’s identity. This is the first study to consider the response to fertility treatments, a contemporary and sensitive topic, from the perspective of the physicians. The findings can contribute to physicians’ understanding of themselves and can help to devise ways to assist them in managing their emotional responses to their work for the benefit of both themselves and their patients.

Development and Validity Testing of an Assessment Tool for Oncofertility Barriers in Multidisciplinary Healthcare Providers on the Breast Cancer Team

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary healthcare providers, especially clinical nurses, lack a valid tool to assess the comprehensive barriers affecting oncofertility care in breast cancer treatment.

PURPOSE

The aims of the research were to develop a self-assessment scale on oncofertility barriers and test its validity and reliability.

METHODS

This was a methodological study. The initial 36 items of the developed Oncofertility Barrier Scale (OBS) were generated through qualitative study and a review of the literature. This scale was further refined using expert validity (n = 10), face validity (n = 10), and item analysis (n = 184). Exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring and direct oblimin rotation was used to determine the construct validity. The reliability of the OBS was evaluated using internal consistency and test-retest analyses.

RESULTS

The mean item-level and scale-level content validity indices of the initial OBS were higher than .96. The data were shown to be feasible for the factor analysis, and a six-factor solution was chosen that accounted for approximately 57.6% of the total variance. These factors included (a) lack of information and education, (b) rigid thinking toward oncofertility care, (c) cancer patient stereotypes, (d) fertility risk, (e) insufficient support, and (f) interrupted oncofertility care. The Cronbach's alpha of the 27-item OBS was .91, and the test-retest reliability coefficient was .55.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The final version of the developed OBS has acceptable reliability, content validity, and construct validity. This scale is appropriate for use in research and clinical practice settings to identify the barriers to fertility cancer care that should be resolved by the breast cancer care team.

Decisional Regret in Female Oncofertility Decision Making-An Integrative Narrative Review

It is well established that fertility is an important issue for young women with cancer at reproductive age, as many have not initiated or completed their parenthood goals when diagnosed. Because cancer treatments may impair fertility, women face fertility decisions that are often complex and surrounded by uncertainty. This may put patients at risk for psychological distress and the experience of regret regarding decisions made at diagnosis, which may be associated with a negative impact on women's QoL. This narrative review addresses current knowledge about decisional regret regarding fertility preservation decisions in adult female cancer patients at reproductive age. Electronic searches were conducted on Pubmed database for articles published in English from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2021 that assessed decisional regret following fertility decisions in young women diagnosed at childbearing age. Of the 96 articles identified, nine provided information on decisional regret regarding fertility decisions. Studies reported that, overall, decisional regret regarding oncofertility decisions was low. Factors associated with the experience of decisional regret were patients' perceived quality and satisfaction with fertility counseling received, the decision to undergo fertility preservation, desire for children and decisional conflict. Health providers should be aware of the factors that are potentially modifiable and prone to improvement in order to reduce decisional regret. All efforts should be made to improve availability of and access to tailored high quality fertility counseling and fertility preservation. Given the growing evidence that decision aids (DAs) are effective in increasing knowledge and reducing decisional conflict and regret, their use in a routine and timely manner to complement fertility counseling is recommended.

Integration of partners of young women with cancer in oncofertility evidence-based informational resources

Oncofertility has evolved over the years, with a prodigious amount of research documenting the importance of fertility for young patients with cancer, and the potential impact that fertility impairments due to cancer treatments has on their Quality of Life (QoL). Multiple professional bodies and scientific societies have included fertility as an integral part of clinical management. Clinical guidelines advocate that health professionals have the duty to discuss the risk of infertility and fertility preservation options as early as possible and refer to fertility specialists when appropriate. Collectively, fertility decisions are regarded as difficult for both patients and providers. Since providing fertility‐related information is vital for better decision making, researchers and policy makers have concentrated their efforts in developing educational tools to aid decisions and guidelines to optimize the delivery of this information, focusing mainly on patients‐providers and largely neglecting the role and influence that partners play in this process. Here, we reflect on the importance of partners in fertility decisions, with a focus on the provision of fertility‐related information that is also geared towards partner. We highlight the need to involve partners in fertility discussions, and that their needs should be taken into account in both clinical guidelines and in the development of educational tools, for an optimal decision‐making process.