Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia: A qualitative study

Sarah C. Armstrong; Emily Vaughan; Sarah Lensen; Lucy Caughey; Cynthia M. Farquhar; Allan Pacey; Adam H. Balen; Michelle Peate; Elaine Wainwright

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069146

Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia: A qualitative study

Sarah C. Armstrong^*, Emily Vaughan, Sarah Lensen, Lucy Caughey, Cynthia M. Farquhar, Allan Pacey, Adam H. Balen, Michelle Peate, Elaine Wainwright

^*Corresponding author for this work

Applied Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives In vitro fertilisation (IVF) add-ons are additional procedures offered alongside an IVF cycle with the aim of improving live birth rates. They are controversial because of the paucity of evidence to support their efficacy and safety, alongside the additional financial cost they often pose to patients. Despite this, they are popular. However, there is limited qualitative research regarding their use. The aims of the VALUE Study were to understand the decision-making process surrounding using or recommending add-ons; report sources of information for add-ons; and explore concerns for safety and effectiveness when considering their use. Design 'VALUE' is a qualitative semistructured interview study using inductive thematic analysis of anonymised transcriptions. Setting Participants were recruited from a broad geographical spread across the UK and Australia from public and private clinical settings. Participants Patients (n=25) and health professionals (embryologists (n=25) and clinicians (n=24)) were interviewed. A purposive sampling strategy was undertaken. The sampling framework included people having state-subsidised and private cycles, professionals working in public and private sectors, geographical location and professionals of all grades. Results Patients often made decisions about add-ons based on hope, minimising considerations of safety, efficacy or cost, whereas professionals sought the best outcomes for their patients and wanted to avoid them wasting their money. The driving forces behind add-on use differed: for patients, a professional opinion was the most influential reason, whereas for professionals, it was seen as patient driven. For both groups, applying the available evidence to individual circumstances was very challenging, especially in the sphere of IVF medicine, where the stakes are high. Conclusions There is scope to build on the quality of the discourse between patients and professionals. Patients describe valuing their autonomy with add-ons, but for professionals, undertaking informed consent will be critical, no matter where they sit on the spectrum regarding add-ons. Trial registration osf.io/vnyb9.

Original language	English
Article number	e069146
Number of pages	11
Journal	BMJ Open
Volume	13
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069146
Publication status	Published - 26 Jul 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Innovation Grant (University of Melbourne) (award number: N/A) and an NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). There were no restrictions or requirements affiliated with the funding. All participants were offered a £30 love2shop voucher or a $50 supermarket voucher as a thank you for their time.

Data Availability Statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information. During the planning phase of VALUE, it was determined following PPI that anonymised transcripts would not be shared owing to concerns that patient and professional participants may be identifiable by their unique clinical or professional stories.

Keywords

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Reproductive medicine
Subfertility

Access to Document

10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069146Licence: CC BY-NC

Armstrong_etal_BMJO_Patient_and_Professional_VOR
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial.
Final published version, 559 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{461653194e2048c1ba7fbc52bdcacd7a,

title = "Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia: A qualitative study",

abstract = "Objectives In vitro fertilisation (IVF) add-ons are additional procedures offered alongside an IVF cycle with the aim of improving live birth rates. They are controversial because of the paucity of evidence to support their efficacy and safety, alongside the additional financial cost they often pose to patients. Despite this, they are popular. However, there is limited qualitative research regarding their use. The aims of the VALUE Study were to understand the decision-making process surrounding using or recommending add-ons; report sources of information for add-ons; and explore concerns for safety and effectiveness when considering their use. Design 'VALUE' is a qualitative semistructured interview study using inductive thematic analysis of anonymised transcriptions. Setting Participants were recruited from a broad geographical spread across the UK and Australia from public and private clinical settings. Participants Patients (n=25) and health professionals (embryologists (n=25) and clinicians (n=24)) were interviewed. A purposive sampling strategy was undertaken. The sampling framework included people having state-subsidised and private cycles, professionals working in public and private sectors, geographical location and professionals of all grades. Results Patients often made decisions about add-ons based on hope, minimising considerations of safety, efficacy or cost, whereas professionals sought the best outcomes for their patients and wanted to avoid them wasting their money. The driving forces behind add-on use differed: for patients, a professional opinion was the most influential reason, whereas for professionals, it was seen as patient driven. For both groups, applying the available evidence to individual circumstances was very challenging, especially in the sphere of IVF medicine, where the stakes are high. Conclusions There is scope to build on the quality of the discourse between patients and professionals. Patients describe valuing their autonomy with add-ons, but for professionals, undertaking informed consent will be critical, no matter where they sit on the spectrum regarding add-ons. Trial registration osf.io/vnyb9.",

keywords = "QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, Reproductive medicine, Subfertility",

author = "Armstrong, {Sarah C.} and Emily Vaughan and Sarah Lensen and Lucy Caughey and Farquhar, {Cynthia M.} and Allan Pacey and Balen, {Adam H.} and Michelle Peate and Elaine Wainwright",

note = "Funding Information: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Innovation Grant (University of Melbourne) (award number: N/A) and an NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). There were no restrictions or requirements affiliated with the funding. All participants were offered a £30 love2shop voucher or a $50 supermarket voucher as a thank you for their time. ",

year = "2023",

month = jul,

day = "26",

doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069146",

language = "English",

volume = "13",

journal = "BMJ Open",

issn = "2044-6055",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia

T2 - A qualitative study

AU - Armstrong, Sarah C.

AU - Vaughan, Emily

AU - Lensen, Sarah

AU - Caughey, Lucy

AU - Farquhar, Cynthia M.

AU - Pacey, Allan

AU - Balen, Adam H.

AU - Peate, Michelle

AU - Wainwright, Elaine

N1 - Funding Information: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Innovation Grant (University of Melbourne) (award number: N/A) and an NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). There were no restrictions or requirements affiliated with the funding. All participants were offered a £30 love2shop voucher or a $50 supermarket voucher as a thank you for their time.

PY - 2023/7/26

Y1 - 2023/7/26

N2 - Objectives In vitro fertilisation (IVF) add-ons are additional procedures offered alongside an IVF cycle with the aim of improving live birth rates. They are controversial because of the paucity of evidence to support their efficacy and safety, alongside the additional financial cost they often pose to patients. Despite this, they are popular. However, there is limited qualitative research regarding their use. The aims of the VALUE Study were to understand the decision-making process surrounding using or recommending add-ons; report sources of information for add-ons; and explore concerns for safety and effectiveness when considering their use. Design 'VALUE' is a qualitative semistructured interview study using inductive thematic analysis of anonymised transcriptions. Setting Participants were recruited from a broad geographical spread across the UK and Australia from public and private clinical settings. Participants Patients (n=25) and health professionals (embryologists (n=25) and clinicians (n=24)) were interviewed. A purposive sampling strategy was undertaken. The sampling framework included people having state-subsidised and private cycles, professionals working in public and private sectors, geographical location and professionals of all grades. Results Patients often made decisions about add-ons based on hope, minimising considerations of safety, efficacy or cost, whereas professionals sought the best outcomes for their patients and wanted to avoid them wasting their money. The driving forces behind add-on use differed: for patients, a professional opinion was the most influential reason, whereas for professionals, it was seen as patient driven. For both groups, applying the available evidence to individual circumstances was very challenging, especially in the sphere of IVF medicine, where the stakes are high. Conclusions There is scope to build on the quality of the discourse between patients and professionals. Patients describe valuing their autonomy with add-ons, but for professionals, undertaking informed consent will be critical, no matter where they sit on the spectrum regarding add-ons. Trial registration osf.io/vnyb9.

AB - Objectives In vitro fertilisation (IVF) add-ons are additional procedures offered alongside an IVF cycle with the aim of improving live birth rates. They are controversial because of the paucity of evidence to support their efficacy and safety, alongside the additional financial cost they often pose to patients. Despite this, they are popular. However, there is limited qualitative research regarding their use. The aims of the VALUE Study were to understand the decision-making process surrounding using or recommending add-ons; report sources of information for add-ons; and explore concerns for safety and effectiveness when considering their use. Design 'VALUE' is a qualitative semistructured interview study using inductive thematic analysis of anonymised transcriptions. Setting Participants were recruited from a broad geographical spread across the UK and Australia from public and private clinical settings. Participants Patients (n=25) and health professionals (embryologists (n=25) and clinicians (n=24)) were interviewed. A purposive sampling strategy was undertaken. The sampling framework included people having state-subsidised and private cycles, professionals working in public and private sectors, geographical location and professionals of all grades. Results Patients often made decisions about add-ons based on hope, minimising considerations of safety, efficacy or cost, whereas professionals sought the best outcomes for their patients and wanted to avoid them wasting their money. The driving forces behind add-on use differed: for patients, a professional opinion was the most influential reason, whereas for professionals, it was seen as patient driven. For both groups, applying the available evidence to individual circumstances was very challenging, especially in the sphere of IVF medicine, where the stakes are high. Conclusions There is scope to build on the quality of the discourse between patients and professionals. Patients describe valuing their autonomy with add-ons, but for professionals, undertaking informed consent will be critical, no matter where they sit on the spectrum regarding add-ons. Trial registration osf.io/vnyb9.

KW - QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

KW - Reproductive medicine

KW - Subfertility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85165919633&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069146

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069146

M3 - Article

C2 - 37495387

AN - SCOPUS:85165919633

SN - 2044-6055

VL - 13

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

IS - 7

M1 - e069146

ER -

Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia: A qualitative study

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Data Availability Statement

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this