Client-centered flexible planning of home-based postpartum care: A randomized controlled trial on the quality of care.

BACKGROUND: Standardization of health systems often hinders client-centered care. This study investigates whether allowing more flexibility in the planning range of the Dutch home-based postpartum care service improves its quality of care, as innovative approach to client-centered care. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted (2017-2019), in which pregnant women who intended to breastfeed were assigned into two groups (1:1). The intervention group was allowed to receive care up to the 14th-day postpartum, instead of the first 8-10 consecutive days ("usual care"). Primary outcome measure was the proportion of newborns still receiving exclusively breastmilk on final caring day of the service. This so-called successful breastfeeding rate is currently used by the Dutch health sector to measure the quality of care. Secondary outcome measures were self-care experience, overall care experience, and exclusive breastfeeding duration rate. RESULTS: Based on data from 1275 participants, there was no difference in exclusive breastfeeding on final caring day (86,7% intervention group vs. 88,9% control group, RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98-1.07). Both groups showed similar self-care experiences. Women in the intervention group had slightly poorer overall care experience and lower exclusive breastfeeding duration rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no effect on the quality of care when allowing more flexibility in the planning range of home-based postpartum care. Women can, therefore, be offered more flexibility to suit them. Given the confusion in interpreting the sector's current main quality indicator, we call for an inclusive dialogue on how to best measure the quality of home-based postpartum care.

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.

Implementation of the three good questions-A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision-making (SDM) efforts in Dutch secondary care, and identify barriers and facilitators of implementation. METHODS: Convergent mixed-method design: pre-post surveys with patients attending one of six clinical departments in a Dutch Hospital, post-intervention interviews with patients and health-care professionals. Primary outcomes: feasibility (reach, use of 3GV). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: SDM, experiences with 3GV and decision making. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators of 3GV use. Interviews were content coded and categorized into determinants of behaviour change. RESULTS: 35% of the respondents who had heard of 3GV (52%) used all three questions. 3GV use did not lead to more SDM (SDMQ9 M = Δ0.3;SE = 2.2) but patients felt empowered to decide (88%) and to SDM (86%). Barriers were as follows: time investment, other SDM projects and perception that the need to use 3GV differs per patient/consultation. Respondents preferred to use 3GV as they saw fit for the consultation, instead of literally asking them. Facilitators: easy, accessible information materials that can be flexibly used. CONCLUSION: Implementation of 3GV seemed feasible, although influenced by contextual characteristics (eg type of decisions, patients, on-going interventions). 3GV contributed to important elements of SDM, and respondents were willing to apply them in a way that suited their situation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend continuation of current and new implementation strategies to enable 3GV implementation in secondary care.

Value based competition in health care's ethical drawbacks and the need for a values-driven approach.

Value Based competition in Health Care (VBHC) has become a guiding principle in the quest for high quality health care for acceptable costs. Current literature lacks substantial ethical evaluation of VBHC.In this paper we describe how a single-minded focus on VBHC may cause serious infringements upon at least four medical ethical principles: 1) it tends to neglect patients' personal values; 2) it ignores the intrinsic value of the caring act; 3) it disproportionately replaces trust in professionals with accountability, and 4) it undermines solidarity.Health care needs a next step in VBHC. We suggest a 'Values-Driven Health Care' (VDHC) approach that a) takes patients' personal values as prescriptive and guiding; b) holds a value account that encompasses health care's intrinsic (gift) values; c) is based upon intelligent accountability that supports trust in trustworthy professionals, and d) encourages patients to raise their voices for the shared good of health care.

Do quality improvements in assisted reproduction technology increase patient numbers in a managed competition setting?

In a system of managed competition, selective contracting and patient choice reward providers for quality improvements through increases in patient numbers and revenue. We research whether these mechanisms function as envisioned by investigating the relationship between quality improvements and patient numbers in assisted reproduction technology in the Netherlands. Success rate improvements primarily reduce volume as fewer secondary treatments are necessary, but this can be compensated by attracting new patients. Using nationwide registry data from 1996 to 2016, we find limited evidence that high-quality clinics attract new patients, and insufficiently as to compensate for the reduction in secondary treatments. The net effect of quality increases appears to be a small decline in revenue. Therefore, we conclude that patient choice and active purchasing reward quality improvements insufficiently. Nevertheless, clinics have improved quality drastically over the last years, showing that financial incentives are perhaps less important factors for quality improvements than factors such as intrinsic motivation and professional autonomy.

Building a patient-centered and interprofessional training program with patients, students and care professionals: study protocol of a participatory design and evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: A common approach to enhance patient-centered care is training care professionals. Additional training of patients has been shown to significantly improve patient-centeredness of care. In this participatory design and evaluation study, patient education and medical education will be combined by co-creating a patient-centered and interprofessional training program, wherein patients, students and care professionals learn together to improve patient-centeredness of care. METHODS: In the design phase, scientific literature regarding interventions and effects of student-run patient education will be synthesized in a scoping review. In addition, focus group studies will be performed on the preferences of patients, students, care professionals and education professionals regarding the structure and content of the training program. Subsequently, an intervention plan of the training program will be constructed by combining these building blocks. In the evaluation phase, patients with a chronic disease, that is rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and hypertension, and patients with an oncologic condition, that is colonic cancer and breast cancer, will learn together with medical students, nursing students and care professionals in training program cycles of three months. Process and effect evaluation will be performed using the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) method to evaluate and optimize the training program in care practice and medical education. A modified control design will be used in PDSA-cycles to ensure that students who act as control will also benefit from participating in the program. DISCUSSION: Our participatory design and evaluation study provides an innovative approach in designing and evaluating an intervention by involving participants in all stages of the design and evaluation process. The approach is expected to enhance the effectiveness of the training program by assessing and meeting participants' needs and preferences. Moreover, by using fast PDSA cycles and a modified control design in evaluating the training program, the training program is expected to be efficiently and rapidly implemented into and adjusted to care practice and medical education.

Implementation of Patient Engagement in the Netherlands: A Stimulating Environment within a Large Academic Medical Centre.

Patients are the official third party of the Dutch healthcare system, apart from healthcare providers and insurers. Radboud university medical center (Radboudumc) is a regional centre for specialized secondary care in the Netherlands. Here innovation is recognized as a decisive factor when it comes to the implementation of patient engagement. Therefore, all employees are invited to innovate, experiment, fail and implement promising innovations into practice. In this paper, we demonstrate how this stimulating environment led to a rich collection of patient engagement activities in organizational (re-)design and in educational programs for students and employees.

Involving Medical Students in Providing Patient Education for Real Patients: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that involving students in patient education can contribute to the quality of care and medical education. Interventions and outcomes in this field, however, have not yet been systematically reviewed. The authors examined the scientific literature for studies on interventions and outcomes of student-provided patient education. METHODS: Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO) were searched for studies reporting patient education, undergraduate medical students, and outcomes of patient education, published between January 1990 and October 2015. Facilitators of and barriers to educational interventions were assessed using the Learning Transfer System Inventory. The learning yield, impact on quality of care, and practical feasibility of the interventions were rated by patients, care professionals, researchers, and education professionals. RESULTS: The search resulted in 4991 hits. Eighteen studies were included in the final synthesis. Studies suggested that student-provided patient education improved patients' health knowledge, attitude, and behavior (nine studies), disease management (three studies), medication adherence (one study), and shared decision-making (one study). In addition, involving students in patient education was reported to enhance students' patient education self-efficacy (four studies), skills (two studies), and behavior (one study), their relationships with patients (two studies), and communication skills (two studies). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that student-provided patient education-specifically, student-run patient education clinics, student-provided outreach programs, student health coaching, and clerkships on patient education-has the potential to improve quality of care and medical education. To enhance the learning effectiveness and quality of student-provided patient education, factors including professional roles for students, training preparation, constructive supervision, peer support on organizational and individual levels, and learning aids should be taken into account. Future research should focus on further investigating the effects found in this study with high-level evidence.

e-Therapy to reduce emotional distress in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART): a feasibility randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is it feasible to evaluate a personalized e-therapy program (Internet based) for women during fertility treatment aimed to reduce the chance of having clinically relevant symptoms of anxiety and/or depression after unsuccessful assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment within a randomized controlled trial (RCT)? STUDY ANSWER: The evaluation of a personalized e-therapy program is feasible, reflected by good acceptability and integration within current guidelines, but adjustments to the e-therapy program and study design of the RCT have to be made to enhance demand, practicality and efficacy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Internet-based interventions are promising in reducing psychological distress, especially when treatment is personalized to specific risk profiles of patients. However in fertility care, the beneficial effects of personalized e-therapy on psychological distress and its implementation in daily clinical care still have to be evaluated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: To evaluate the feasibility of a personalized e-therapy program, we conducted a two-arm, parallel group, single-blind feasibility randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation. Feasibility was assessed in terms of demand, acceptability, practicality, implementation, integration and limited efficacy. Women were included between 1 February 2011 and 1 June 2013. Women in the control group received care as usual, whereas women in the intervention group received in addition to their usual care access to a personalized e-therapy program. Women were monitored until 3 months after the start of their first ART cycle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In a university hospital in the Netherlands women who were screened as at risk for emotional adjustment problems and intended to start their first ART cycle were invited, and of them 120 were randomized. Of these women, 48% in the intervention group were compliant to the intervention. Outcome measures associated with the feasibility to analyse this e-therapy program within an RCT were assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: It is feasible to evaluate a personalized e-therapy program within an RCT. The acceptability was good, as was the integration within current clinical guidelines and care. However, the demand reflected by a participation rate of 44% was low, since most women declined participation because they felt no need for support at that moment. The practicality of the intervention was moderate illustrated by a relatively high dropout rate (30%) due to practical concerns. The intervention was effective, shown by a reduction in the percentage women having clinically relevant symptoms of anxiety and/or depression in the compliant intervention group compared with the control group 3 months after the first ART cycle; risk difference of 24% (95% CI: 2-46%; ITALIC! P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The large non-participation rate (56%) needs further evaluation. This also could have influenced results on limited efficacy. Barriers for participation could be assessed more in-depth. Moreover, ∼30% dropped out. This percentage is comparable with other e-health studies. Finally, this is a single-centre study. Generalizability could be enlarged by a multi-centre approach. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In clinical fertility care, personalizing an e-therapy program to the patients' risk profile is promising and feasible. However, in future studies, we recommend modification of the study protocol by for example offering the intervention to the preferred moment in the treatment process. Moreover, adjustment of the study protocol tailored to the found barriers and facilitators is needed. When performing a multi-centre consecutive RCT to assess the effectiveness of personalized e-therapy in fertility care, the findings of this study, for example concerning the preferred timing or reasons for non-participation, could be helpful. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: NutsOhra (Study Number 0702-94) funded this study with an unrestricted grant. There were no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 01283607. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 21 January 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: February, 2011.

Added value of involving patients in the first step of multidisciplinary guideline development: a qualitative interview study among infertile patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient involvement in scoping the guideline is emphasized, but published initiatives actively involving patients are generally limited to the writing and reviewing phase. OBJECTIVE: To assess patients' added value to the scoping phase of a multidisciplinary guideline on infertility. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted interviews among 12 infertile couples and 17 professionals. INTERVENTION: We listed and compared the couples' and professionals' key clinical issues (=care aspects that need improvement) to be addressed in the guideline according to four domains: current guidelines, professionals, patients and organization of care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main key clinical issues suggested by more than three quarters of the infertile couples and/or at least two professionals were identified and compared. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 32 key clinical issues among infertile couples and 23 among professionals. Of the defined main key clinical issues, infertile couples mentioned eight issues that were not mentioned by the professionals. These main key clinical issues mainly concerned patient-centred (e.g. poor information provision and poor alignment of care) aspects of care on the professional and organizational domain. Both groups mentioned two main key clinical issues collectively that were interpreted differently: the lack of emotional support and respect for patients' values. CONCLUSIONS: Including patients from the first phase of the guideline development process leads to valuable additional main key clinical issues for the next step of a multidisciplinary guideline development process and broadens the scope of the guideline, particularly regarding patient-centredness and organizational issues from a patients' perspective.

Improving patient-centredness in partnership with female patients: a cluster RCT in fertility care.

QUESTION: What is the effect of a multifaceted intervention with participation of patients on improvement of patient-centredness in fertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: A multifaceted intervention with participation of patients did not improve total patient-centredness scores provided by women in fertility care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We should provide care that takes into account the preferences and needs of patients, i.e. patient-centred care. Especially infertile patients who suffer from a high emotional burden of treatment could benefit from a more patient-centred approach in healthcare. However, the improvement of patient-centred care is still needed, because effective strategies to come to improvement are lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: A cluster RCT was performed within 32 Dutch fertility clinics, covering about one-third of all Dutch hospitals. After randomization, 16 clinics in the intervention group were exposed to a multifaceted improvement strategy for patient-centred fertility care for 1 year. This strategy comprised audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and patient-mediated interventions. The remaining 16 clinics in the control group performed care as usual. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: The clinics' levels of patient-centredness were measured, using the validated Patient-centredness Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility). At baseline measurement, a total of 1620 women in couples undergoing fertility care (this included both male, female, mixed infertility and infertility of unknown cause) in one of the participating clinics were randomly selected to participate in the study and complete the questionnaire. For the after measurement, we randomly selected a comparable sample of 1565 women in infertile couples. Both women who had already started their treatment before the start of the study (67%) and women who started their treatment after the start of this study (33%) were included. To avoid bias, we only included the responses of non-pregnant respondents. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: The final analysis involved 30 clinics. A total of 946 women (response 58.4%) completed their questionnaire at baseline measurement and also a total of 946 women (response 60.4%) at after measurement. After excluding the pregnant patients, respectively 696 and 730 questionnaires were eligible for analysis at baseline and after measurement. The total score of case-mix adjusted PCQ-Infertility at after measurement did not differ significantly between the intervention and control group (B = 0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.04-0.15; P = 0.25). However, scores on the continuity of care subscale were significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (B = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.00-0.40; P < 0.05). The addition of three interaction terms to the model had a significant impact: (i) being younger than 36 years, (ii) beginning treatment after the study had started and (iii) using complementary and alternative medicine. If women met all three conditions, the scores in the intervention group were on average 0.31 points higher compared with the control group (95% CI = 0.14-0.48; P = <0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our response rates are sufficient, but the responses of many women are still lacking which might have biased our results. Furthermore, the PCQ-Infertility scores at baseline measurement were already reasonably high, which could have limited the effect of the multifaceted improvement strategy. Because we only included women in infertile couples in our study, we cannot draw conclusions on the effect of an improvement strategy for patient-centred fertility care for partners. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: A multifaceted intervention with participation of patients did not improve total patient-centredness scores, although some effect could be observed in specific groups of women and in specific dimensions of patient-centredness. These results can guide future research, in which we should focus more on personalized strategies and outcome measures. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), The Netherlands. There are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT01481064.

Long-acting FSH versus daily FSH for women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Assisted reproduction techniques (ART), such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), can help subfertile couples to create a family. It is necessary to induce multiple follicles, which is achieved by follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) injections. Current treatment regimens prescribe daily injections of FSH (urinary FSH either with or without luteinizing hormone (LH) injections or recombinant FSH (rFSH)).Recombinant DNA technologies have produced a new recombinant molecule which is a long-acting FSH, named corifollitropin alfa (Elonva) or FSH-CTP. A single dose of long-acting FSH is able to keep the circulating FSH level above the threshold necessary to support multi-follicular growth for an entire week. The optimal dose of long-acting FSH is still being determined. A single injection of long-acting FSH can replace seven daily FSH injections during the first week of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and can make assisted reproduction more patient friendly. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in terms of pregnancy and safety outcomes in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers and websites from inception to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, electronic trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, citation indexes, conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge, LILACS, Clinical Study Results (for clinical trial results of marketed pharmaceuticals), PubMed and OpenSIGLE. We also carried out handsearches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in women who were part of a couple with subfertility and undertaking IVF or ICSI treatment cycles with a GnRH antagonist or agonist protocol. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We contacted trial authors in cases of missing data. We calculated risk ratios for each outcome, and our primary outcomes were live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. Our secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, any other adverse event (including ectopic pregnancy, congenital malformations, drug side effects and infection) and patient satisfaction with the treatment. Trials reported all outcomes, except patient satisfaction with the treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with a total of 3753 participants and we graded the quality of the included studies as moderate. All studies included women with an indication for COS as part of an IVF/ICSI cycle with age ranging from 18 to 41 years. A comparison of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH did not show evidence of difference in effect on overall live birth rate (Risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.07; 2363 participants, eight studies; I² statistic = 44%) or OHSS (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.37; 3753 participants, nine studies; I² statistic = 0%). We compared subgroups by dose of long-acting FSH. There was evidence of reduced live birth rate in women who received lower doses (60 to 120 µg) of long-acting FSH compared to daily FSH (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.93; 645 participants, three studies; I² statistic = 0%). There was no evidence a difference between the groups in live births in the medium dose (150 to 180 µg) subgroup (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 1685 participants, four studies; I² statistic = 6%). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the clinical pregnancy rate (any dose), ongoing pregnancy rate (any dose), multiple pregnancy rate (any dose), miscarriage rate (low or medium dose), ectopic pregnancy rate (any dose), congenital malformation rate, congenital malformation rate; major or minor (low or medium dose). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of a medium dose (150 to 180 µg) of long-acting FSH is a safe treatment option and equally effective compared to daily FSH in women with unexplained subfertility. There was evidence of reduced live birth rate in women receiving a low dose (60 to 120 µg) of long-acting FSH compared to daily FSH. Further research is needed to determine whether long-acting FSH is safe and effective for use in hyper- or poor responders and in women with all causes of subfertility.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques(ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers. We conducted searches in November 2014, and further searches on 4 August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison and combined data when appropriate using a fixed-effect model. Our primary out come was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-four women RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes.1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women)There was no evidence of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12, three RCTs,527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence, but I2 of 61% was found for the subgroup of ongoing pregnancy) with a random effects model. hCG increased the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (1 RCT, OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, low quality evidence).2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women)Evidence suggests a higher rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence). OHSS was not reported.3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women)hCG regimens included comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. No evidence showed differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or in the risk of OHSS (four RCTs, 615 women, progesterone vs hCG OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.34; four RCTs,678 women; progesterone vs progesterone plus hCG, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26, low-quality evidence).4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women)No evidence was found of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs,1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women)Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group and increased in women who received progester one and one or more GnRH agonist doses (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity for this comparison was high because of unexplained variation in the effect size, but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, 1 RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence).6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women)The included studies reported nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence);IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.5 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol:OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (oneRCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women,I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); and vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two of these comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal. No evidence showed a difference between groups.7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women)The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. No evidence was found to suggest differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short and a long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low dose and a high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence).Neither study reported OHSS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both progesterone and hCG during the luteal phase are associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo.The addition of GnRHa to progesterone is associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. OHSS rates are increased with hCG compared to placebo (only study only). The addition of oestrogen does not seem to improve outcomes. The route of progester one administration is not associated with an improvement in outcomes.

Timed intercourse for couples trying to conceive.

BACKGROUND: Fertility problems are very common, as subfertility affects about 10% to 15% of couples trying to conceive. There are many factors that may impact a couple's ability to conceive and one of these may be incorrect timing of intercourse. Conception is only possible from approximately five days before up to several hours after ovulation. Therefore, to be effective, intercourse must take place during this fertile period. 'Timed intercourse' is the practice of prospectively identifying ovulation and, thus, the fertile period to increase the likelihood of conception. Whilst timed intercourse may increase conception rates and reduce unnecessary intervention and costs, there may be associated adverse aspects including time consumption and stress. Ovulation prediction methods used for timing intercourse include urinary hormone measurement (luteinizing hormone (LH), estrogen), tracking basal body temperatures, cervical mucus investigation, calendar charting and ultrasonography. This review considered the evidence from randomised controlled trials for the use of timed intercourse on positive pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of ovulation prediction methods for timing intercourse on conception in couples trying to conceive. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources to identify relevant randomised controlled trials, the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, LILACS, Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Register Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Furthermore, we manually searched the references of relevant articles. The search was not restricted by language or publication status. The last search was on 5 August 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing timed intercourse versus intercourse without ovulation prediction or comparing different methods of ovulation prediction for timing intercourse against each other in couples trying to conceive. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The primary review outcomes were cumulative live birth and adverse events (such as quality of life, depression and stress). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, pregnancy (clinical or self-reported pregnancy, not yet confirmed by ultrasound) and time to conception. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs (2840 women or couples) comparing timed intercourse versus intercourse without ovulation prediction. Unfortunately one large study (n = 1453) reporting live birth and pregnancy had not published outcome data by randomised group and therefore could not be analysed. Consequently, four RCTs (n = 1387) were included in the meta-analysis. The evidence was of low to very low quality. Main limitations for downgrading the evidence included imprecision, lack of reporting clinically relevant outcomes and the high risk of publication bias.One study reported live birth, but the sample size was too small to draw any relevant conclusions on the effect of timed intercourse (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.41, 1 RCT, n = 17, very low quality).One study reported stress as an adverse event. There was no evidence of a difference in levels of stress (mean difference 1.98, 95 CI% -0.87 to 4.83, 1 RCT, n = 77, low level evidence). No other studies reported adverse events.Two studies reported clinical pregnancy. There was no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.12, 2 RCTs, n = 177, I(2) = 0%, low level evidence). This suggested that if the chance of a clinical pregnancy following intercourse without ovulation prediction is assumed to be 16%, the chance of success following timed intercourse would be between 9% and 33%.Four studies reported pregnancy rate (clinical or self-reported pregnancy). Timed intercourse was associated with higher pregnancy rates compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction in couples trying to conceive (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.71, 4 RCTs, n = 1387, I(2) = 0%, very low level evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a pregnancy following intercourse without ovulation prediction is assumed to be 13%, the chance following timed intercourse would be between 14% and 23%. Subgroup analysis by duration of subfertility showed no difference in effect between couples trying to conceive for < 12 months versus couples trying for ≥ 12 months. One trial reported time to conception data and showed no evidence of a difference in time to conception. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data available to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of timed intercourse for the outcomes of live birth, adverse events and clinical pregnancy. Timed intercourse may improve pregnancy rates (clinical or self-reported pregnancy, not yet confirmed by ultrasound) compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction. The quality of this evidence is low to very low and therefore findings should be regarded with caution. There is a high risk of publication bias, as one large study remains unpublished 8 years after recruitment finished. Further research is required, reporting clinically relevant outcomes (live birth, clinical pregnancy rates and adverse effects), to determine if timed intercourse is safe and effective in couples trying to conceive.

Personal health communities: a phenomenological study of a new health-care concept.

CONTEXT: Fragmentation of care, complexity of diseases and the need to involve patients actively in their individual health care led to the development of the personal health community (PHC). In a PHC, patients can -regardless of the nature of their condition- invite all professionals that are involved in their health care process. Once gathered, the patient and health care team can exchange information about the patient's health and communicate through several functionalities, in a secured environment. OBJECTIVES: Exploring the use, first experiences and potential consequences of using PHCs in health care. DESIGN: Qualitative phenomenological study. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen respondents, consisting of women experiencing infertility (n = 5), persons with Parkinson's disease (n = 6), a gynaecologist, a fertility doctor, a fertility nurse, three Parkinson's specialist nurses and a neurologist. RESULTS: First experiences with PHCs showed that patients use their PHC differently, dependending on their condition and people involved. Various (potential) advantages for future health care were mentioned relating to both organizational aspects of care (e.g. continuity of care) and the human side of care (e.g. personal care). Patient involvement in care was facilitated. Disadvantages were the amount of work that it took and technological issues. CONCLUSIONS: Using PHCs leads to promising improvements in both the organization of care and care experience, according to the participants in this study. They indicate that patients with different diseases and in different circumstances can benefit from these improvements. The PHC seem to be an online tool that can be applied in a personalized way. When (technically) well facilitated, it could stimulate active involvement of patients in their own health and health care. It warrants further research to study its effect on concrete health outcomes.

The monetary value of patient-centred care: results from a discrete choice experiment in Dutch fertility care.

STUDY QUESTION: What are patients and insurers willing to pay for different aspects of fertility care, with a particular focus on patient-centredness? SUMMARY ANSWER: In fertility care, both patients and health insurers place a high value on patient-centred factors, also when taking into account the effectiveness of fertility care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: The benefit patients derive from fertility treatment may arise from several aspects of their care, such as the effectiveness, safety or patient-centred factors. Patient-centredness is recognized as an important, multi-dimensional concept, including domains on the organizational level (e.g. information provision) and on the human level (e.g. patient involvement). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: We performed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within 32 Dutch fertility clinics and five large health insurance companies in the Netherlands. A total of 996 infertile patients who underwent at least one treatment cycle for their fertility problem and 84 healthcare insurers participated in the study which was executed in the summer of 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All participating patients and health insurers completed a DCE about their preferences in fertility care regarding the effectiveness, patient-centredness of care and additional costs. Logistic regression analysis was subsequently used to determine what both patients and health insurers were willing to pay for a one-step increase in patient-centred care and 1% higher pregnancy rates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Five hundred and fifty patients (55.2%) and 45 healthcare insurers (53.6%) completed the DCE questionnaire. Patients were willing to pay a median amount of €463 for a relevant one-step increase in patient-centred care and €107 for 1% increase in pregnancy rates. Healthcare insurers' valuations were lower: €191 for more patient-centred care and €60 for 1% increase in pregnancy rates. The willingness-to-pay values depended on patients' age, patients' ethnicity, income, and treatment type and on health insurers' age. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: An important limitation of a DCE study is that other attributes, that were not included in our study, are relevant as well. Therefore, our study participants might make other choices in real life compared with our hypothetical DCE scenarios. We tried to prevent this potential bias by selecting the most important attributes from the literature, using the input of an expert panel and performing a pilot study to test the validity of our questionnaire. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study emphasizes the importance of patient-centredness aspects of care for both infertile patients and their insurers. Therefore, efforts by policymakers and clinicians to improve these aspects of care would increase the overall value patients derive from their fertility treatment. Moreover, although insurers placed a lower monetary value on patient-centredness aspects than patients, it is arguable that insurers' purchasing decisions should be guided by patient rather than insurer preferences. Finally, given the relatively high monetary value patients place on patient-centred aspects of their fertility care, there may be a willingness to allow for some optional co-payments for this quality of care dimension. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by Merck Sharp and Dohme, the Netherlands. No competing interests declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials NCT01834313.

Aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of infrequent periods (oligomenorrhoea) and absence of periods (amenorrhoea). It affects about 4% to 8% of women worldwide and often leads to anovulatory subfertility. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a novel class of drugs that were introduced for ovulation induction in 2001. Over the last ten years clinical trials have reached differing conclusions as to whether the AI letrozole is at least as effective as the first-line treatment clomiphene citrate (CC). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aromatase inhibitors for subfertile women with anovulatory PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources from inception to 24/10/2013 to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Pubmed, LILACS, Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organisation (WHO) clinical trials register and Clinicaltrials.gov. Furthermore, we manually searched the references of relevant articles.The search was not restricted by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of aromatase inhibitors used alone or with other medical therapies for ovulation induction in women of reproductive age with anovulatory PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Studies were pooled where appropriate using a fixed effect model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for most outcomes and risk differences (RDs) for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The primary outcomes were live birth and OHSS. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy, miscarriage and multiple pregnancy. The quality of the evidence for each comparison was assessed using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (5560 women). In all studies the aromatase inhibitor was letrozole. Live birth (12 RCTs) One RCT compared letrozole with placebo in women who were clomiphene resistant and the results were inconclusive (OR 3.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 83.17, n=36)Nine RCTs compared letrozole with clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by timed intercourse. The birth rate was higher in the letrozole group (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.03, n=1783, I²=3%)Two RCTs compared letrozole with laparoscopic ovarian drilling. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in live birth rate (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.86, n=407, I²=0%) OHSS (16 RCTs) There was no evidence of a difference in OHSS rates when letrozole was compared with placebo (one RCT, n=36), clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by timed intercourse (nine RCTs, n=2179), clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by intrauterine insemination (IUI) (two RCTs, n=1494), laparoscopic ovarian drilling (one RCT, n=260) or anastrozole (one RCT, n=220). Events were absent or very rare, and no study had more than 2 cases of OHSS. Clinical pregnancy (25 RCTs) One RCT compared letrozole versus placebo in women who were clomiphene resistant and the results were inconclusive (OR 3.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 83.17, n=36)Fourteen RCTs compared letrozole versus clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by timed intercourse. The pregnancy rate was higher in the letrozole group (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.60, n=2066, I²=25%)Three RCTs compared letrozole versus clomiphene citrate (with or without adjuncts) followed by IUI. The pregnancy rate was higher in the letrozole group (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.25, n=1597)Three RCTs compared letrozole versus laparoscopic ovarian drilling. There was no evidence of a difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.65, n=553, I²=0%)Two RCTs compared letrozole versus anastrozole, one RCT compared a five day versus a 10 day administration protocol for letrozole and another RCT compared 5 mg of letrozole versus 7.5 mg of letrozole. There was no evidence of a difference in the clinical pregnancy rate in these comparisons.The quality of the evidence was rated as low for live birth and pregnancy outcomes. The reasons for downgrading the evidence were poor reporting of study methods, possible publication bias and the tendency for studies that reported live birth to report higher clinical pregnancy rates in the letrozole group than studies that failed to report live birth (suggesting that results might be somewhat less favourable to letrozole if all studies reported live birth). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Letrozole appears to improve live birth and pregnancy rates in subfertile women with anovulatory PCOS, compared to clomiphene citrate. The quality of this evidence is low and findings should be regarded with some caution. There appears to be no difference in effectiveness between letrozole and laparoscopic ovarian drilling, though there were few relevant studies. OHSS was a very rare event, with no occurrences in most studies.

Long-term ongoing pregnancy rate and mode of conception after a positive and negative post-coital test.

OBJECTIVE: Many fertility clinics have decided to abolish the post-coital test. Yet, it is a significant factor in prognostic models that predict the spontaneous pregnancy rate within one year. The aim of this study was to evaluate (1) the long-term outcome of infertile couples with a positive or a negative post-coital test during their fertility work-up and (2) the contribution of the different modes of conception. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three fertility clinics in the Netherlands, of which two are secondary care training hospitals and is a one tertiary care academic training hospital. POPULATION: 2476 newly referred infertile couples, where a post-coital test was performed in 1624 couples. METHODS: After basic fertility work-up, couples were treated according to the national treatment protocols. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spontaneous and overall ongoing pregnancy rate. RESULTS: The spontaneous and overall ongoing pregnancy rates after three years were 37.7 and 77.5% after a positive post-coital test compared with 26.9 and 68.8% after a negative test (p < 0.001). Even in couples with severe male factor infertility (total motile sperm count <3) (p = 0.005) and mild male factor infertility (total motile sperm count 3-20) (p < 0.001), there was a significantly higher spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rate, justifying expectant management. CONCLUSION: After a follow-up of three years a positive post-coital test is still associated with a higher spontaneous and a higher overall ongoing pregnancy rate, even in couples with severe male factor infertility.

The patient-centeredness of endometriosis care and targets for improvement: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a prevalent condition compromising physical and psychosocial health and thus requiring patient-centered care, which is guided by patients' values. This study aimed to find out what the patient's perspective on endometriosis care is and how the patient-centeredness of endometriosis care can be improved. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched systematically, and study selection was based on eligibility and quality. Study methodology was examined. Specific care aspects valued by patients were organized according to 10 dimensions of patient-centered endometriosis care. Based on patients' assessments of service quality, patient-centered improvement targets and strengths were identified. RESULTS: Twelve of 20 eligible studies had sufficient quality to be included. Endometriosis patients valued all 10 dimensions of patient-centered endometriosis care. Problematic service quality was reported for all dimensions but 'coordination and integration' and 'involvement of significant others'. Two patient-centered strengths and 29 patient-centered improvement targets were identified. The most frequently reported improvement targets on which studies agreed were 'timely diagnosis' and 'being believed and respected by staff'. CONCLUSION: Endometriosis patients value patient-centeredness in addition to effectiveness and safety of care, and its 10 dimensions require attention in clinical practice. Research into the assessment and improvement of patient-centered endometriosis care is required.

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations.

OBJECTIVES: Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied. SETTING: We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians. RESULTS: We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.