[How do we organize tomorrow's healthcare?] / De zorg van morgen.

Healthcare is in the heart of a rapidly changing society, with a number of major challenges. How do we organize tomorrow's healthcare in that light? In recent years, we focused on standardization, but that starts to squeeze. Patients are more than their disease the average patient does not exist. We are ready for the next steps. Good care has a lot to do with the good life and is therefore personal, complex and morally charged. Good care requires a broader base than just professional values and empirical knowledge. A mix of values and knowledge sources is required. This needs a more learning and connecting way of working. The organization of tomorrow's care must be in line and offer space for collaboration and learning. This requires organizing in networks and more trust in care providers and patients. Less control over content and more control over learning, connecting and shared values.

General practitioners' adherence to work-up and referral recommendations in fertility care.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the current guideline adherence by general practitioners (GPs) for work-up and subsequent referral from primary to secondary care for patients suffering from infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: Guideline adherence by GPs concerning infertility was 9.2% in couples referred. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Adherence to recommendations can decrease unnecessary referral, diagnostics and treatments, and consequently result in lower expenditures. Moreover, patients can be saved from unnecessary hospital visits, emotional burden and out of pocket costs. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: A retrospective cohort study among 306 patients referred for basic fertility work-up between January 2011 and June 2013 from primary care to a secondary care teaching hospital or a tertiary hospital with IVF facilities. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: Couples were eligible to participate when there was no previous referral for fertility problems and the duration of the child wish was <2 years. Data to assess guideline adherence were collected from the referral letter and the medical records. A patient questionnaire was used to determine patients' general and fertility-related characteristics. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The GP performed a Chlamydia Antibody Titre (CAT) testing and semen analysis as recommended in 15.9% and 42.2% of the referred patients, respectively. According to the guideline, 39% of the couples were under referred (i.e. not immediately referred as recommended), 8.8% were unnecessarily referred and the CAT and semen analysis were unnecessarily repeated in secondary care in 80.0% and 57.1% of cases, respectively. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: We could not include non-referred patients with expectant management in primary care, an unknown number of whom became pregnant in this period. This may have resulted in an underestimation of primary care performance. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings show that guideline adherence concerning work-up and subsequent referral for fertility problems is low. The influence of patient demands for referral remains largely unknown. Barriers and facilitators for guideline adherence should be determined to develop interventions to improve guideline adherence in the areas of work-up and referral for fertility care and to diminish duplicate tests in secondary care. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funded by CZ, a Dutch healthcare insurer (grant number AFVV 11-232). CZ had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Total motile sperm count: a better indicator for the severity of male factor infertility than the WHO sperm classification system.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the prewash total motile sperm count (TMSC) have a better predictive value for spontaneous ongoing pregnancy (SOP) than the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system? SUMMARY ANSWER: The prewash TMSC shows a better correlation with the spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rate (SOPR) than the WHO 2010 classification system. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: According to the WHO classification system, an abnormal semen analysis can be diagnosed as oligozoospermia, astenozoospermia, teratozoospermia or combinations of these and azoospermia. This classification is based on the fifth percentile cut-off values of a cohort of 1953 men with proven fertility. Although this classification suggests accuracy, the relevance for the prognosis of an infertile couple and the choice of treatment is questionable. The TMSC is obtained by multiplying the sample volume by the density and the percentage of A and B motility spermatozoa. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We analyzed data from a longitudinal cohort study among unselected infertile couples who were referred to three Dutch hospitals between January 2002 and December 2006. Of the total cohort of 2476 infertile couples, only the couples with either male infertility as a single diagnosis or unexplained infertility were included (n = 1177) with a follow-up period of 3 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In all couples a semen analysis was performed. Based on the best semen analysis if more tests were performed, couples were grouped according to the WHO classification system and the TMSC range, as described in the Dutch national guidelines for male infertility. The primary outcome measure was the SOPR, which occurred before, during or after treatments, including expectant management, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. After adjustment for the confounding factors (female and male age, duration and type of infertility and result of the postcoital test) the odd ratios (ORs) for risk of SOP for each WHO and TMSC group were calculated. The couples with unexplained infertility were used as reference. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 514 couples did and 663 couples did not achieve a SOP. All WHO groups have a lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.136 to 0.397). Comparing the couples within the abnormal WHO groups, there are no significant differences in SOPR, except when oligoasthenoteratozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.501 (95% CI 0.311-0.809)] and teratozoospermia [OR 0.499 (95% CI: 0.252-0.988)], and oligoasthenozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.572 (95% CI: 0.373-0.877)]. All TMSC groups have a significantly lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.171 to 0.461). Couples with a TMSC of <1 × 10(6) and 1-5 × 10(6) have significantly lower SOPR compared with couples with a TMSC of 5-10 × 10(6) [respectively, OR 0.371 (95% CI: 0.215-0.64) and OR 0.505 (95% CI: 0.307-0.832)]. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: To include all SOPs during the follow-up period of 3 years, couples were not censured at the start of treatment. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Roughly, three prognostic groups can be discerned: couples with a TMSC <5, couples with a TMSC between 5 and 20 and couples with a TMSC of more than 20 × 10(6) spermatozoa. We suggest using TMSC as the method of choice to express severity of male infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None.

Communication at an online infertility expert forum: provider responses to patients' emotional and informational cues.

Online patient-provider communication has become increasingly popular in fertility care. However, it is not known to what extent patients express cues or concerns and how providers respond. In this study, we investigated cues and responses that occur in online patient-provider communication at an infertility-specific expert forum. We extracted 106 threads from the multidisciplinary expert forum of two Dutch IVF clinics. We performed the following analyses: (1) thematic analysis of patients' questions; and (2) rating patients' emotional and informational cues and subsequent professionals' responses using an adaptation of the validated Medical Interview Aural Rating Scale. Frequencies of themes, frequencies of cues and responses, and sequences (what cue is followed by what response) were extracted. Sixty-five infertile patients and 19 providers participated. The most common themes included medication and lifestyle. Patients gave more informational than emotional cues (106 versus 64). Responses to informational cues were mostly adequate (61%). The most common response to emotional cues was empathic acknowledgment (72%). Results indicate that an online expert forum could have a positive effect on patient outcomes, which should guide future research. Offering infertile patients an expert forum to communicate with providers can be a promising supplement to usual care in both providing information and addressing patients' concerns.

Recurrent miscarriage: do professionals adhere to their guidelines.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the actual care for recurrent miscarriage in clinical practice in accordance with 23 guideline-based quality indicators? SUMMARY ANSWER: The accordance of actual care with the guidelines was poor and there is evident room for improvement. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Evidence-based guidelines are important instruments to improve quality of care, but implementation of guidelines is often problematic. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study was performed within a 12-month period (2006) in nine departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: Five hundred and thirty women with recurrent miscarriage were included. Actual care was assessed with 23 guideline-based quality indicators (covering diagnostics, therapy and counselling) by calculating per indicator the percentage of women for whom the indicator was followed. Thereafter we did multilevel analyses, to relate the adherence to the indicator to determinants of women, professionals and hospitals. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Homocysteine and antiphospholipid antibodies were determined in 39 and 47%, respectively. Thrombophilia screening (54%) and karyotyping (50%) were offered to women regardless of their underlying risk for inherited thrombophilia or chromosome abnormalities. Higher maternal age at the time of presentation and a lower number of preceding miscarriages were improperly used to decide on diagnostic tests and were both associated with lower guideline adherence by professionals. Professionals with a subspecialization in recurrent miscarriage performed better standard care, i.e. screening for antiphospholipid antibodies and homocysteine, but also showed overuse of diagnostics in women at low risk of inherited thrombophilia. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Retrospective cohort study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Quality indicators used will enable measurement of quality of care. STUDY FUNDING: The study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (Grant no. 94517005). None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare.

Differences in quality of life and emotional status between infertile women and their partners.

STUDY QUESTION: Do the quality of life (QoL) and the risk factors for emotional problems during and after treatment of infertile women differ from their partners? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women have lower levels of fertility-related QoL, and more and differing risk factors for emotional problems during and after treatment than their partners. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: The psychological impact of infertility in patients negatively affects their QoL and is also related to increased discontinuation of treatment. Moreover, psychological factors might positively affect pregnancy rates. However, it is still unclear if differences in QoL and emotional status exist between infertile women and their partners. So far, research mainly focused on generic instruments to measure patients' QoL in the area of fertility care. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional study of infertile couples within 32 Dutch fertility clinics. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included infertile women and their partners (both heterosexual and lesbian couples) under any treatment and at any stage of treatment in one of the 32 participating clinics. Per clinic, 25-75 patients were randomly selected depending on clinic size. In total, 1620 women and their partners were invited separately to complete the FertiQoL and SCREENIVF questionnaires to measure their level of QoL and risk factors for emotional problems during and after treatment, respectively. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 946 women (response rate 58%) and 670 partners (response rate 41%) completed the questionnaire set. As 250 women and 150 partners were already pregnant, questionnaires from 696 women and 520 partners could be analysed. Women scored significantly lower on the FertiQoL total scores [B = -6.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -7.63 to 4.98] and three of the FertiQoL subscales (Emotional, Mind-Body and Social) than their partners, indicating lower QoL. Scores on the SCREENIVF questionnaire were significantly higher for women (B = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.06-0.38), indicating that women are more at risk for developing emotional problems (and these factors differed from those of their partners) during and after fertility treatment than their partners. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the number of participants is high (n = 1216), the relatively low response rate, especially for partners (41%), may have influenced the results through selection bias. An analysis of non-responders could not be performed. The FertiQoL and SCREENIVF questionnaires, which have been validated only in women starting a first IVF cycle, should also be validated for studying partners. In addition, the SCREENIVF questionnaire has been validated in Dutch women only and further research in an international setting is also required. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study results represent the Dutch infertile population as more than one-third of all Dutch clinics participated in the study. As the FertiQoL questionnaire is an internationally validated questionnaire already, these results can be put in a more broader and international perspective. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), The Netherlands. There are no competing interests.

Predicting dropout in fertility care: a longitudinal study on patient-centredness.

STUDY QUESTION: Are clinic factors, including patients' experiences with patient-centred care, associated with dropout in fertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Clinic factors, including patients' experiences with patient-centred care, are not related to dropout. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In fertility care, a significant proportion of patients do not achieve pregnancy because they discontinue treatment prematurely. Many studies have tried to identify factors predicting dropout, showing incompatible results. However, these studies mainly focus on factors at the treatment and patient level, while clinic factors have received little attention. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective, longitudinal study was nested within a large RCT, which aims to improve the level of patient-centredness of Dutch fertility care. Of the 1620 infertile women who were invited to participate, the baseline measurement of the study (T0) included 693 women who completed a questionnaire about their experiences with patient-centred fertility care. The follow-up of the patients was 1 year (T1). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All included women suffered from infertility and were undergoing treatment in one of the 32 Dutch clinics involved in the trial. Levels of patient-centredness were determined using the Patient-Centredness Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility) at T0. Meanwhile, a professionals' questionnaire was used to gather additional information on characteristics of the clinic (e.g. the number of patients per year or the presence of a fertility nurse). After 1 year, at T1 measurement, patients completed a questionnaire on their current status in fertility care, including their main reason for discontinuation if applicable. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 693 non-pregnant women completed the questionnaire set at T0 and 534 women (77.1%) provided consent for follow-up. At T1 measurement, 434 women (81.3%) completed the questionnaire and 153 of these women (35.2%) continued treatment while 76 women (17.5%) dropped out. Another 175 women (40.3%) had achieved pregnancy and 30 patients (7.9%) were advised to discontinue treatment for medical reasons. Neither levels of patient-centredness nor the additional clinic characteristics differed significantly between dropouts and compliers. However, patients who did not receive assisted reproduction treatment (ART; e.g. underwent intrauterine insemination, IUI) before they dropped out had significantly lower scores on the PCQ-Infertility subscale 'Respect for patients' values' than patients who continued their treatment [odds ratio (OR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.95]. Patients who received ART and, subsequently, dropped out had higher scores on the PCQ-Infertility subscale 'Patient involvement' than those receiving non-ART (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.02-5.59). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We were not able to follow-up a significant proportion (ca. 19%) of the 1620 women who were invited for T0 measurement, which might have biased our results. We also excluded patients who were still in the diagnostic work-up stage and this might have influenced our results as it is known that patients dropout at this stage. As the PCQ-Infertility was validated in patients who were already undergoing treatment, we decided to focus on this patient group only. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study provide a better insight into those factors influencing dropout from the perspective of factors in the clinic itself. Although most clinic factors were not related to dropout, clinic factors might be of use when predicting dropout for specific patient groups, such as patients receiving ART and non-ART. Future research should involve an exploration of more specific predictors of dropout at the patient, treatment and clinic levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by Merck Serono, the Netherlands. No competing interests declared.

Quality indicators for all dimensions of infertility care quality: consensus between professionals and patients.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the relative importance of the six dimensions of quality of care according to different stakeholders and can a quality indicator set address all six quality dimensions and incorporate the views from professionals working in different disciplines and from patients? SUMMARY ANSWER: Safety, effectiveness and patient centeredness were the most important quality dimensions. All six quality dimensions can be assessed with a set of 24 quality indicators, which is face valid and acceptable according to both professionals from different disciplines and patients. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: To our knowledge, no study has weighted the relative importance of all quality dimensions to infertility care. Additionally, there are very few infertility care-specific quality indicators and no quality indicator set covers all six quality dimensions and incorporated the views of professionals and patients. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: A three-round iterative Delphi survey including patients and professionals from four different fields, conducted in two European countries over the course of 2011 and 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS AND METHODS: Dutch and Belgian gynaecologists, embryologists, counsellors, nurses/midwifes and patients took part (n = 43 in round 1 and finally 30 in round 3). Respondents ranked the six quality dimensions twice for importance and their agreement was evaluated. Furthermore, in round 1, respondents gave suggestions, which were subsequently uniformly formulated as quality indicators. In rounds 2 and 3, respondents rated the quality indicators for preparedness to measure and for importance (relation to quality and prioritization for benchmarking). Providing feedback allowed selecting indicators based on consensus between stakeholder groups. Measurable indicators, important to all stakeholder groups, were selected for each quality dimension. MAIN RESULTS: All stakeholder groups and most individuals agreed that safety, effectiveness and patient centeredness were the most important quality dimensions. A total of 498 suggestions led to the development of 298 indicators. Professionals were sufficiently prepared to measure 204 of these indicators. Based on importance, 52 (7-15 per dimension; round 2) and finally 24 (4 per dimension; round 3) quality indicators were selected. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The final quality indicator set does not cover the entire care process, but rather takes a 'sample' of each quality dimension. Although the quality indicators are face valid and acceptable, their psychometric characteristics need to be tested by further research. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Quality management should focus on safety, effectiveness and patient centeredness of care. Clinics can use the quality indicator set to assess all quality dimensions of their care.

Chromatin remodelling initiation in spermatids: differences among human males.

During the last phase of spermatogenesis, called spermiogenesis, the nucleosome-based chromatin structure is replaced by a protamine-based DNA packaging. Not much is known about the chromatin remodelling involved in humans and animals. Here, we have investigated initiation of chromatin remodelling over seven probands of which five were diagnosed with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) and two with obstructive azoospermia (OA) (failed vaso-vasostomy patients with proven fertility prior to vasectomy, Johnsen scores ≥9). Chromatin remodelling was studied evaluating the presence of nucleosomes, histone H3, pre-protamine 2 and protamine 1. This approach was feasible since the local initiation of nucleosome eviction in the sub acrosomal domain, which was visible in alkaline nuclear spread preparations. The patterns of nucleosome and H3 loss were largely congruent. Nucleus wide incorporation of protamine 1 could already be observed at the late round spermatid stage. Both for nucleosome loss and for protamine 1 incorporation, there was distinct variation within and between probands. This did not relate to the efficiency of sperm production per meiocyte. Pre-protamine 2 was always confined to the subacrosomal domain, confirming the role of this area in chromatin remodelling.

Development of guideline-based indicators for patient-centredness in fertility care: what patients add.

STUDY QUESTION: What value can patients add to the development of guideline-based quality indicators for patient-centredness in fertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Infertile patients mainly select different indicators and value different dimensions of patient-centredness (e.g. information and communication and access to care) than professionals (e.g. coordination and integration of care) during an indicator development process. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Patient-centredness is an important dimension for the quality of fertility care. However, this dimension is not adequately evaluated by professionals, due to a lack of quality indicators. Furthermore, it is suggested that patients select different indicators for patient-centredness than professionals, although exact differences are unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: The RAND-modified Delphi method (a two-step systematic consensus method) was used to develop two sets of quality indicators for patient-centredness. Similarities and differences in the indicators as well as in aspects of patient-centredness between patients' and professionals' sets of indicators were analysed descriptively. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: The development of quality indicators for patient-centredness was based on the national multidisciplinary Network Guideline on infertility. Two panels participated: one patients' panel (n = 19) and one multidisciplinary professionals' panel (n = 15). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: From 119 formulated potential indicators of patient-centredness, the patients' panel selected a representative set of 16, while the professionals' panel selected 18. Five indicators were included in both sets. These regarded the need to perform IUI at least 6 days a week; report on treatment outcomes and complications; report on results of semen analyses in a standardized way; counsel infertile couples about the positive effects on their chance of pregnancy of the elimination of a harmful lifestyle and provide information on the negative consequences for achieving a pregnancy in case of a high BMI. Both patients and professionals put highest value on potential indicators of information and communication in fertility care. Patients also emphasized accessibility of care, whereas professionals emphasized coordination and integration as important quality measures for patient-centredness in fertility care. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: First, the total number of developed indicators in the final set is relatively large (n = 29), which could be a first potential limitation in its use for accreditation and quality monitoring. Secondly, although panel members were asked to take reliability into account during the selection procedure, the indicators still need an evaluation of the measurability and the intra- and inter-observer reliability. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The final guideline-based indicator set consisting of 29 indicators represents a balanced set that is based on the expertise of all stakeholders, including patients. A next step should be the application of this set in a future practice test to assess the feasibility in daily practice. In our opinion, most quality indicators for patient-centredness could be used for monitoring and improving the quality of fertility care internationally, occasionally by a more broad interpretation (e.g. by replacing the general practitioners with other healthcare professionals engaged in the care process). STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by a research grant (number 150020015) from the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) in a research programme on broadening and acceleration in multidisciplinary guideline development. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Guideline adherence is worth the effort: a cost-effectiveness analysis in intrauterine insemination care.

STUDY QUESTION: Is optimal adherence to guideline recommendations in intrauterine insemination (IUI) care cost-effective from a societal perspective when compared with suboptimal adherence to guideline recommendations? SUMMARY ANSWER: Optimal guideline adherence in IUI care has substantial economic benefits when compared with suboptimal guideline adherence. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility guidelines are tools to help health-care professionals, and patients make better decisions about clinically effective, safe and cost-effective care. Up to now, there has been limited published evidence about the association between guideline adherence and cost-effectiveness in fertility care. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In a retrospective cohort study involving medical record analysis and a patient survey (n = 415), interviews with staff members (n = 13) and a review of hospitals' financial department reports and literature, data were obtained about patient characteristics, process aspects and clinical outcomes of IUI care and resources consumed. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, restricted to four relevant guideline recommendations, the ongoing pregnancy rate per couple (effectiveness), the average medical and non-medical costs of IUI care, possible additional IVF treatment, pregnancy, delivery and period from birth up to 6 weeks after birth for both mother and offspring per couple (costs) and the incremental net monetary benefits were calculated to investigate if optimal guideline adherence is cost-effective from a societal perspective when compared with suboptimal guideline adherence. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Seven hundred and sixty five of 1100 randomly selected infertile couples from the databases of the fertility laboratories of 10 Dutch hospitals, including 1 large university hospital providing tertiary care and 9 public hospitals providing secondary care, were willing to participate, but 350 couples were excluded because of ovulatory disorders or the use of donated spermatozoa (n = 184), still ongoing IUI treatment (n = 143) or no access to their medical records (n = 23). As a result, 415 infertile couples who started a total of 1803 IUI cycles were eligible for the cost-effectiveness analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Optimal adherence to the guideline recommendations about sperm quality, the total number of IUI cycles and dose of human chorionic gonadotrophin was cost-effective with an incremental net monetary benefit between € 645 and over € 7500 per couple, depending on the recommendation and assuming a willingness to pay € 20 000 for an ongoing pregnancy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Because not all recommendations applied to all 415 included couples, smaller groups were left for some of the cost-effectiveness analyses, and one integrated analysis with all recommendations within one model was impossible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Optimal guideline adherence in IUI care has substantial economic benefits when compared with suboptimal guideline adherence. For Europe, where over 144,000 IUI cycles are initiated each year to treat ≈ 32 000 infertile couples, this could mean a possible cost saving of at least 20 million euro yearly. Therefore, it is valuable to make an effort to improve guideline development and implementation.

Evaluation of an effective multifaceted implementation strategy for elective single-embryo transfer after in vitro fertilization.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the relationship between the rate of elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) and couples' exposure to different elements of a multifaceted implementation strategy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Additional elements in a multifaceted implementation strategy do not result in an increased eSET rate. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A multifaceted eSET implementation strategy with four different elements is effective in increasing the eSET rate by 11%. It is unclear whether every strategy element contributes equally to the strategy's effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN AND SIZE: An observational study was performed among 222 subfertile couples included in a previously performed randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS, SETTINGS AND METHODS: Of the 222 subfertile couples included, 109 couples received the implementation strategy and 113 couples received standard IVF care. A multivariate regression analysis assessed the effectiveness of four different strategy elements on the decision about the number embryos to be transferred. Questionnaires evaluated the experiences of couples with the different elements. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the couples who received the implementation strategy, almost 50% (52/109) were exposed to all the four elements of the strategy. The remaining 57 couples who received two or three elements of the strategy could be divided into two further classes of exposure. Our analysis demonstrated that additional elements do not result in an increased eSET rate. In addition to the physician's advice, couples rated a decision aid and a counselling session as more important for their decision to transfer one or two embryos, compared with a phone call and a reimbursement offer (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: The differences in eSET rate between exposure groups failed to reach significance, probably because of the small numbers of couples in each exposure group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Adding more elements to an implementation strategy does not always result in an increased effectiveness, which is in concordance with recent literature. This in-depth evaluation of a multifaceted intervention strategy could therefore help to modify strategies, by making them more effective and less expensive.

Why we should talk about compliance with assisted reproductive technologies (ART): a systematic review and meta-analysis of ART compliance rates.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the rate of compliance with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and examine its relationship with treatment success rates. METHODS: Six databases were systematically searched from 1978 to December 2011. Studies were included if they reported data on patient progression through three consecutive standard ART cycles. Compliance was estimated for the first three ART cycles (typical ART Regimen Compliance, TARC) and after the first and the second failed cycles (CAF1, CAF2). Treatment success rates for all patients who started ART and for those who fully complied with the three ART cycles were estimated. RESULTS: Ten studies with data for 14 810 patients were included. TARC was 78.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 68.8-85.3%], CAF1 was 81.8% (73.3-88.1%) and CAF2 was 75.3% (68.2-81.2%). The overall success rate was 42.7% (32.6-53.6%) for all patients starting ART and 57.9% (49.4-65.9%) for those who complied with three ART cycles. Compliance rates did not vary according to study quality, but TARC was higher for studies that reported data on doctor-censored patients versus those that did not (84.2% 95% CI 75.5-90.2 versus 70.6% 95% CI 58.3-80.5, P = 0.043). Analysis of funnel plots and the Egger test indicated publication bias for CAF1. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this meta-analysis should reassure clinics and patients that most patients are able to comply with three cycles of ART. Compliers could increase their chances of success by as much as 15%. A more detailed assessment of compliance requires monitoring long-term treatment trajectories through the creation of national registries.

Feasibility of screening patients for emotional risk factors before in vitro fertilization in daily clinical practice: a process evaluation.

STUDY QUESTION: Is patient screening for emotional risk factors before starting IVF treatment feasible? SUMMARY ANSWER: Introduction of screening for emotional risk factors by a validated instrument (SCREENIVF) in couples treated by IVF or ICSI is feasible, indicated by a moderate to high and stable uptake rate, a high acceptance of the process of SCREENIVF, and a high acceptability of the presented risk profile by the patients. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: SCREENIVF is a validated screening tool to identify women at risk for emotional maladjustment preceding the start of their IVF/ICSI treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: This was a prospective cohort study, including data of two cohorts of patients (304 and 342 patients), with a duration of 3 months per cohort. For the first cohort, we sent a process evaluation to 210 patients and it was completed by 91 patients. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: All 304 patients (male and female) who started IVF/ICSI between 1 December 2009 and 28 February 2010 in our tertiary IVF clinic were eligible. The uptake rate of SCREENIVF was assessed as the response rate to the screening questionnaire. One year later, we re-assessed the uptake rate in 342 new patients to assess the stability of the uptake rate. A non-responder assessment in patients who did not complete SCREENIVF was carried out. Finally, patients' characteristics and their experiences with SCREENIVF as well as their consequent actions were assessed by an additional process evaluation questionnaire sent some months later to 210 patients. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The uptake rate of SCREENIVF was 78-80%. One-third of the responders were found to be at risk for emotional maladjustment, which was comparable with previous studies using SCREENIVF. Of 27 non-responders to SCREENIVF, 41% explained non-response by 'no actual need for psychological help' and 19% forgot to complete the screening. The response rate to the process evaluation was 43% (n = 91). Of these, 90% found the screening was useful, and almost all patients were positive about the SCREENIVF questionnaire. Furthermore, 93% recognized themselves in the risk profile based on SCREENIVF. Of the patients at risk, 21% reported planning to seek professional help, but 46% of the at-risk patients experienced travelling distance as an obstacle to seek psychological help. We concluded that screening patients for emotional risk factors is feasible. In future, psychosocial care offered by the Internet may be promising in meeting the barrier of travelling distance. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: People were asked to fill in SCREENIVF for clinical purposes pretreatment. There might be a selection bias in the people who did not fill in SCREENIVF, which may be due to already existing psychological problems or language problems. The low response rate of the process evaluation questionnaire and the mono-centre evaluation may be confounders and may have influenced our analysis opportunities. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The generalizability of this data is unknown with respect to other ethnic groups. Furthermore, more research is needed to evaluate psychosocial factors in male partners. Future research should also focus on the barriers and facilitators for help-seeking behaviour. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no funding for this study and no conflict of interest.

The ENDOCARE questionnaire guides European endometriosis clinics to improve the patient-centeredness of their care.

STUDY QUESTION: How patient-centered are two included specialized endometriosis clinics relative to each other and how can they improve the patient-centeredness of their care? SUMMARY ANSWER: The validated ENDOCARE questionnaire (ECQ) reliably concluded that the adjusted overall patient-centeredness did not differ between the clinics, that each clinic was significantly more patient-centered for 2 out of 10 dimensions of patient-centered endometriosis care and that clinics 1 and 2 had to improve 8 and 13 specific care aspects, respectively. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Patient-centered endometriosis care is essential to high-quality care and is defined by 10 dimensions. The ECQ was developed, validated and proved to be reliable in a European setting of self-reported endometriosis patients but had not yet been used at a clinic level for quality management. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional survey was disseminated in 2011 to all 514 women diagnosed with endometriosis during a laparoscopy indicated for pain and/or infertility during a retrospective 2-year period (2009-2010) in two university clinics from two different European countries. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total 337 patients completed the ECQ (216 and 121 per clinic). Respondents had a mean age of 34.3 years. Three in four reported a surgical diagnosis of moderate or severe endometriosis and the majority reported surgical treatment by a multidisciplinary team. The ECQ assessed the 10 dimensions of patient-centeredness, more specifically whether the health-care performance, as perceived by patients, measured up to what is important to patients in general. MAIN RESULTS: The ECQ was completed by 337 respondents (response rate = 65.6%). Reliability and validity of the ECQ for use on clinic level were confirmed. Clinics did not differ in overall mean importance scores; importance rankings of the ECQ dimensions were almost identical. The overall patient-centeredness scores (PCS), adjusted for education level, did not discriminate between the clinics. However, the adjusted PCS for the dimensions 'clinic staff' and 'technical skills' were significantly better in clinic 1, whereas the dimensions 'physical comfort' and 'access to care' were significantly better in clinic 2. There were 8 (clinic 1) and 13 (clinic 2) targets identified for joint and cross-clinic improvement. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Response rates were relatively high. Recall bias was the most important limitation and research in more clinics is needed to define the statistical discriminative value of the ECQ. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: European endometriosis clinics can use the validated ECQ for reliable assessment of their 'patient-centeredness', for comparison with others and for setting specific targets to improve the patient-centeredness of their endometriosis care, to plan interventions, and to evaluate their effectiveness. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: This work was funded by KU Leuven and European Network of Endometriosis (ENE), supported by the European Commission (Public Health Executive Agency). No competing interests are declared.

Patients from across Europe have similar views on patient-centred care: an international multilingual qualitative study in infertility care.

BACKGROUND: International patient centredness concepts were suggested but never conceptualized from the patients' perspective. Previously, a literature review and a monolingual qualitative study defined 'patient-centred infertility care' (PCIC). The present study aimed to test whether patients from across Europe value the same aspects of infertility care. METHODS: An international multilingual focus group (FG) study with 48 European patients from fertility clinics in Austria, Spain, the UK and Belgium, with deductive content analysis. RESULTS: All specific care aspects important to participants from all countries could be allocated to the 10 dimensions of PCIC, each discussed in every FG, including: 'information provision', 'attitude of and relationship with staff', 'competence of clinic and staff', 'communication', 'patient involvement and privacy', 'emotional support', 'coordination and integration', 'continuity and transition', 'physical comfort' and 'accessibility'. Most specific care aspects (65%) were discussed in two or more countries and only a few new codes (11%) needed to be added to the previously published coding tree. Rankings from across Europe clearly showed that 'information provision' is a top priority. CONCLUSIONS: The PCIC-model is the first patient-centred care (PCC) model based on the patients' perspective to be validated in an international setting. Although health-care organization and performance differ, the similarities between countries in the infertile patients' perspective were striking, as were the similarities with PCC models from other clinical conditions. A non-condition specific international PCC model and a European instrument for the patient centredness of infertility care could be developed. European professionals can learn from each other on how to provide PCC.

Tailored expectant management: a nationwide survey to quantify patients' and professionals' barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models for natural conception help to identify subfertile couples with high chances of natural conception, who do not need fertility treatment yet. The use of such models and subsequent tailored expectant management (TEM) is not always practiced. Previous qualitative research has identified barriers and facilitators of TEM among patients and professionals. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of those barriers and facilitators and to evaluate which factors predict patients' appreciation of TEM and professionals' adherence to TEM. METHODS: We performed a nationwide survey. Based on the previously identified barriers and facilitators two questionnaires were developed and sent to 195 couples and 167 professionals. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate which factors predicted patients' appreciation of TEM and professional adherence to TEM. RESULTS: In total, 118 (61%) couples and 117 (70%) professionals responded and 96 couples and 117 professionals were included in the analysis. Patients' mean appreciation of TEM was 5.7, on a 10-point Likert scale. Patients with a lower appreciation of TEM had a higher need for patient information (P = 0.047). The professionals reported a mean adherence to TEM of 63%. Adherence to TEM was higher when professionals were fertility doctors (P = 0.041). Facilitators in the clinical domain were associated with a higher adherence to TEM (P = 0.091). Barriers in the professional domain had a negative impact on adherence to TEM (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The limited implementation of TEM is caused by both patient and professional-related factors. This study provides practical tools to improve the implementation of TEM.

How patient-centred care relates to patients' quality of life and distress: a study in 427 women experiencing infertility.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent patients' experiences with fertility care are associated with their quality of life (QoL), and levels of anxiety and depression. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study within 29 Dutch fertility clinics, including women with fertility problems. Through multilevel regression analyses, associations between patients' QoL (FertiQoL) and distress [anxiety and depression; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)] and their experiences with fertility care [patient-centredness questionnaire (PCQ)-infertility] were determined. For all multilevel models, R² and intra-cluster correlation coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: This study included 427 non-pregnant patients who filled out the FertiQoL, HADS and PCQ-infertility (response rate 76%). Multilevel regression analysis showed significant associations between the PCQ total scale, the total FertiQoL scale (B = 0.25), and HADS subscales (B = -0.22 and -0.18). Of the variance in patients' experiences, 13% (=R²) could be explained by their perceived QoL, 12% by their level of anxiety and 10% by their level of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centredness in fertility care and the patients' QoL and anxiety and depression scores are related. Paying attention to these variables could lead to positive care experiences and improved patient-centredness of care. Future research should focus on identifying causal relationships among these variables.

Patient-focused internet interventions in reproductive medicine: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The Internet has revolutionized fertility care since it became a popular source of information and support for infertile patients in the last decade. The aim of this scoping review is to map (i) the main categories of patient-focused Internet interventions within fertility care, (ii) the detailed composition of the interventions and (iii) how these interventions were evaluated. METHODS: A literature search used various 'Internet' and 'Infertility' search terms to identify relevant studies published up to 1 September 2011. The selected studies had to include patients facing infertility and using an infertility-related Internet intervention. We charted data regarding categories of interventions, components of interventions and evaluation methodology. We categorized the stages of research using the UK's Medical Research Council framework for evaluating complex interventions. RESULTS: We included 20 studies and identified 3 educational interventions, 2 self-help interventions, 1 human-supported therapeutic intervention, 9 online support groups and 2 counselling services. Information provision, support and mental health promotion were common aims. Few interactive online components were present in the online programmes. Three studies were in the pilot phase and 17 were in the evaluation phase. CONCLUSIONS: Several categories of patient-focused Internet-based interventions in fertility care are primarily applied to provide support and education and promote mental health. The interventions could be improved by using more interactive and dynamic elements as their key components. Finally, more emphasis on methodological standards for complex interventions is needed to produce more rigorous evaluations. This review shows where further development or research into patient-focused Internet interventions in fertility-care practice may be warranted.