Assisted reproductive technology (ART) patient information-seeking behavior: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 13% of women in the United States of reproductive age seek infertility services. Assisted reproductive technology (ART), including in vitro fertilization, is used to help patients achieve pregnancy. Many people are not familiar with these treatments prior to becoming patients and possess knowledge gaps about care. METHODS: This study employed qualitative methods to investigate how patients interact with information sources during care. Patients who underwent ART including embryo transfer between January 2017 and April 2022 at a large urban healthcare center were eligible. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted between August and October 2022. Fifteen females with an average age of 39 years participated. Reflexive thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Two main themes emerged. Participants (1) utilized clinic-provided information and then turned to outside sources to fill knowledge gaps; (2) struggled to learn about costs, insurance, and mental health resources to support care. Participants preferred clinic-provided resources and then utilized academic sources, the internet, and social media when they had unfulfilled information needs. Knowledge gaps related to cost, insurance, and mental health support were reported. CONCLUSION: ART clinics can consider providing more information about cost, insurance, and mental health support to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Massachusetts General Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study (#2022P000474) and informed consent was obtained from each participant.

Embedding Big Qual and Team Science into Qualitative Research: Lessons from a Large-scale, Cross-site Research Study.

Background: A major part of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS), launched in 2019 to address the growing opioid epidemic, is evaluating the study's intervention implementation process through an implementation science (IS) approach. One component of the IS approach involves teams with more than 20 researchers collaborating across four research sites to conduct in-depth qualitative interviews with over 300 participants at four time points. After completion of the first two rounds of data collection, we reflect upon our qualitative data collection and analysis approach. We aim to share our lessons learned about designing and applying qualitative methods within an implementation science framework. Methods: The HCS evaluation is based on the RE-AIM/PRISM framework and incorporates interviews at four timepoints. At each timepoint, the core qualitative team of the Intervention Work Group drafts an interview guide based on the framework and insights from previous round(s) of data collection. Researchers then conduct interviews with key informants and coalition members within their respective states. Data analysis involves drafting, iteratively refining, and finalizing a codebook in a cross-site and within-site consensus processes. Interview transcripts are then individually coded by researchers within their respective states. Results: Successes in the evaluation process includes having structured procedures for communication, data collection, and analysis, all of which are critical for ensuring consistent data collection and for achieving consensus during data analysis. Challenges include recognizing and accommodating the diversity of training and knowledge between researchers, and establishing reliable ways to securely store, manage, and share the large volumes of data. Conclusion: Qualitative methods using a team science approach have been limited in their application in large, multi-site randomized controlled trials of health interventions. Our experience provides practical guidance for future studies with large, experientially and disciplinarily diverse teams, and teams seeking to incorporate qualitative or mixed-methods components for their evaluations.