Priorities for family building among patients and partners seeking treatment for infertility

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.

How Individuals Use Metaphors to Negotiate Fertility Treatment Decision-Making with Their Romantic Partners

Fertility problems, or the inability to conceive or carry a pregnancy to term for a period of over 12 months while engaging in unprotected sex, affects 12% of women and 9% of men of childbearing age. To answer calls for more research about individuals' fertility decision-making (DM) with their partners, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 53 individuals who have experienced fertility decision-making with a romantic partner at some point in their lives. Our findings indicate at least three primary ways individuals and their partners navigated their decision-making communication in their infertility "journeys:" (1) the Driver-Navigator, (2) Driver-Passenger, and (3) Driver-Backseat Driver approaches. All decision-making communication approaches were viewed by individuals as collaborative (i.e. shared), but varied in degrees of "togetherness" (high, moderate, low) in how they communicated with each other about treatment decisions. Implications include helping couples and their clinicians to be aware of their DM approach(es) and offering alternative DM approaches based on understanding how and why certain approaches may (not) be effective in addressing goals, needs, and identities.

Decision regret among couples experiencing infertility: a mixed methods longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

Decisions for how to resolve infertility are complex and may lead to regret. We examined whether couples and individuals who sought a consultation from a reproductive specialist for infertility later expressed decisional regret about their family-building choices and whether regret was associated with parental role, family-building paths, or outcomes.

METHODS

This longitudinal mixed methods study included women and their partners who completed a questionnaire prior to their initial consultation with a reproductive specialist and 6 years later. The six-year questionnaire included the Ottawa Decision Regret Scale referencing "the decisions you made about how to add a child to your family." A score of 25+ indicates moderate-to-severe regret. Additional items invited reflections on family-building decisions, treatments, and costs. A systematic content analysis assessed qualitative themes.

RESULTS

Forty-five couples and 34 individuals participated in the six-year questionnaire (76% retention rate), Half (n = 61) of participants expressed no regret, which was similar by role (median 0 for women and supporting partners, F = .08; p = .77). One in 5 women and 1 in 7 partners expressed moderate-to-severe regret. Women who did not pursue any treatment had significantly higher regret (median 15; F = 5.6, p < 0.01) compared to those who pursued IVF (median 0) or other treatments (median 0). Women who did not add a child to their family had significantly higher regret (median 35; F = 10.1, p < 0.001) than those who added a child through treatment (median 0), through fostering/adoption (median 0), or naturally (median 5). Among partners, regret scores were not associated with family-building paths or outcomes. More than one-quarter of participants wished they had spent less money trying to add a child to their family. Qualitative themes included gratitude for parenthood despite the burdensome process of family-building as well as dissatisfaction or regret about the process. Results should be confirmed in other settings to increase generalizability.

CONCLUSION

This longitudinal study provides new insight into the burden of infertility. For women seeking parenthood, any of the multiple paths to parenthood may prevent future decision regret. Greater psychosocial, financial, and decision support is needed to help patients and their partners navigate family-building with minimal regret.

Identifying modifiable factors associated with psychological health in women experiencing infertility

This study assessed the relationship between modifiable psychological variables and depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic growth in women experiencing infertility. U.S. women (N = 457) who identified as experiencing infertility completed standardized self-report measures of mindfulness, self-compassion, positive affect, intolerance of uncertainty, relationship satisfaction, experiential avoidance, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic growth. Clinical and demographic characteristics (age, duration trying to conceive, miscarriage, and childlessness) did not predict depression or anxiety. Lower positive affect and higher experiential avoidance were associated with depression and anxiety. Lower self-compassion was associated with depression; higher intolerance of uncertainty was associated with anxiety. There were indirect effects of mindfulness on anxiety and depression via these variables. Future research should explore whether intervening on these factors reduces depressive and anxiety symptoms. Promoting mindfulness may have beneficial effects on symptoms via its downstream effects on multiple coping variables. Counterintuitively, posttraumatic growth was associated with higher intolerance of uncertainty and experiential avoidance.

The need for longitudinal data on the value of fertility treatment for infertile patients' quality of life: A review and pilot study

Infertility threatens the life goal of parenthood and, hence, quality of life (QoL) of (wo)men, but the fertility clinic trajectory might be burdensome. This review of longitudinal studies and pilot longitudinal study examines the impact of the pre-in vitro fertilization (IVF) fertility clinic trajectory on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for emotional well-being, including QoL. A publication found that the diagnostic workup decreases men's infertility-specific distress while publications disagree whether it decreases (wo)men's anxious and depressive reactions. Intrauterine insemination (IUI) was found to increase (wo)men's depressive reactions. Publications on infertility-specific, health-related, and overall QoL were missing. The pilot indicated that (wo)men's overall QoL is not affected by the diagnostic workup but is decreased by the time of the third IUI. Longitudinal studies on the impact of starting the fertility clinic trajectory on PROMs are needed as they are essential for patient-centered clinical decision-making and patient-centered policy-level decision-making.

The Tell me tool: The development and feasibility of a tool for person-centred infertility care

Background

An important—and often missing—element of person‐centred care is the inclusion of individual patients' values and preferences. This is challenging but especially important for high‐burden fertility treatments. We describe the development of a clinical tool that aims to facilitate the delivery of person‐centred fertility care by giving insight into the patients' values and preferences.

Methods

We developed the Tell me tool following the three principles of user‐centred design: (1) early and continual focus on users; (2) iterative design; (3) measurement of user behaviour. Accordingly, our methods consisted of three phases: (1) conducting semi‐structured interviews with 18 couples undergoing fertility treatment, followed by a consensus meeting with relevant stakeholders; (2) performing seven iterative improvement rounds; (3) testing the feasibility of the tool in 10 couples.

Results

The Tell me tool consists of a ranking assignment of 13 themes and two open‐ended questions. These themes relate to the couples' wellbeing and experience of the treatment, such as mental health and shared decision making. The open‐ended questions ask them to write down what matters most to them. The field test showed variation between the individual patients' answers. The tool proved to highlight what is important to the individual patient and gives insight into patients' personal contexts.

Conclusions

We developed a tool that gives insight into the values and preferences of the individual patient. The tool seems feasible for facilitating person‐centred fertility care.

Patient or Public Contribution

The tool was developed with a user‐centred design that strongly involved patients.

Decisional conflict among couples seeking specialty treatment for infertility in the USA: a longitudinal exploratory study

STUDY QUESTION

What are couples' decisional conflicts around family-building approaches before and after seeking a specialty consultation for infertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Decisional conflict is high among couples before an initial specialty consultation for infertility; on average, women resolved decisional conflict more quickly than men.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Couples have multiple options for addressing infertility, and decisional conflict may arise due to lack of information, uncertainty about options and potential risks or challenges to personal values.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We conducted a total of 385 interviews and 405 surveys for this longitudinal, mixed-methods cohort study of 34 opposite-sex couples who sought a new reproductive specialty consultation (n = 68), who enrolled before the initial consultation and were followed over 12 months.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The in-depth, semi-structured interviews included questions about information gathering, deliberation and decision-making, and self-administered surveys included the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), at six time points over 12 months. A DCS total score of 25 is associated with implementing a decision, and higher scores indicate more decisional conflict. A systematic content analysis of interview transcripts identified major themes. Paired t tests identified differences in DCS between women and men within couples. Linear mixed models predicted changes in DCS over time, adjusting for sociodemographic and fertility-related factors.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The major qualitative themes were communication with partners, feeling supported and/or pressured in decision (s), changing decisions over time and ability to execute a desired decision. Average DCS scores were highest before the initial consultation. Within couples, men had significantly higher decisional conflict than women pre-consultation (48.9 versus 40.2, P = 0.037) and at 2 months (28.9 versus 22.1, P = 0.015), but differences at other time points were not significant. In adjusted models, predicted DCS scores declined over time, with women, on average, reaching the DCS threshold for implementing a decision at 2 months while for men it was not until 4 months.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This is a convenience sample from a single center, and generalizability may be limited.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Understanding how couples discuss and make decisions regarding family-building could improve the delivery of patient-centered infertility care. Our findings are the first to prospectively explore decisional conflict at multiple time points in both men and women; the observed gender differences underlie the importance of supporting both partners in clinical decision-making for infertility.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development under Grant [R21HD071332], the Research and Education Program Fund, of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at Medical College of Wisconsin, the National Research Service Award under Grant [T32 HP10030] and the use of REDCap for data collection from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health under Grant through [8UL1TR000055]. The authors have no competing interests.

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.

A conceptual framework for patient-centered fertility treatment

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered care is a pillar of quality health care and is important to patients experiencing infertility. In this study we used empirical, in-depth data on couples' experiences of infertility treatment decision making to inform and revise a conceptual framework for patient-centered fertility treatment that was developed based on health care professionals' conceptualizations of fertility treatment, covering effectiveness, burden, safety, and costs.

METHODS

In this prospective, longitudinal mixed methods study, we collected data from both members (separately) of 37 couples who scheduled an initial consult with a reproductive specialist. Data collection occurred 1 week before the initial consultation, 1 week after the initial consultation, and then roughly 2, 4, 8, and 12 months later. Data collection included semi-structured qualitative interviews, self-reported questionnaires, and medical record review. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed in NVivo. A single coder analyzed all transcripts, with > 25% of transcripts coded by a second coder to ensure quality control and consistency.

RESULTS

Content analysis of the interview transcripts revealed 6 treatment dimensions: effectiveness, physical and emotional burden, time, cost, potential risks, and genetic parentage. Thus, the revised framework for patient-centered fertility treatment retains much from the original framework, with modification to one dimension (from safety to potential risks) and the addition of two dimensions (time and genetic parentage). For patients and their partners making fertility treatment decisions, tradeoffs are explicitly considered across dimensions as opposed to each dimension being considered on its own.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-centered fertility treatment should account for the dimensions of treatment that patients and their partners weigh when making decisions about how to add a child to their family. Based on the lived experiences of couples seeking specialist medical care for infertility, this revised conceptual framework can be used to inform patient-centered treatment and research on infertility and to develop decision support tools for patients and providers.