Dropout rate and cumulative birth outcomes in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization within a funded and actively managed system of care in New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the dropout rate between the first and second in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in a controlled population derived from a funded and actively managed system of care in New Zealand, including the reason for dropout and associated cumulative live birth rate. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Multicenter IVF practice. PATIENT(S): Couples qualifying for publicly funded IVF treatment under New Zealand's Clinical Priority Assessment Criteria. Couples (n = 974) started treatment between July 2011 and June 2013, used their own gametes, and were eligible for up to 2 IVF packages of funded care (including the transfer of surplus embryos). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): IVF dropout rate, reason for dropout, and cumulative live birth rate. RESULT(S): A low IVF dropout rate between the first and second IVF cycle was reported within this controlled IVF population, with 10% of couples discontinuing treatment for reasons related to stress. The cumulative live birth rate in this "low dropout" population was 59% at the end of treatment, ranging from 72% (≤30 years) to 42% (38-39 years) according to female age. Most patients who discontinued for stress had a good prognosis, and a third of patients still had embryos in cryostorage. Only 30% of those who discontinued used the funded counseling services. CONCLUSION(S): A low dropout rate (10%) can be achieved within an actively managed IVF population. This was lower than previously reported, suggesting that prognosis, cost, and treatment management are the significant causes of dropout within the general IVF population. Couples with many embryos also require psychological support because of treatment fatigue or repeated transfers.

The Development of an International Oncofertility Competency Framework: A Model to Increase Oncofertility Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Despite international evidence about fertility preservation (FP), several barriers still prevent the implementation of equitable FP practice. Currently, oncofertility competencies do not exist. The aim of this study was to develop an oncofertility competency framework that defines the key components of oncofertility care, develops a model for prioritizing service development, and defines the roles that health care professionals (HCPs) play. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A quantitative modified Delphi methodology was used to conduct two rounds of an electronic survey, querying and synthesizing opinions about statements regarding oncofertility care with HCPs and patient and family advocacy groups (PFAs) from 16 countries (12 high and 4 middle income). Statements included the roles of HCPs and priorities for service development care across ten domains (communication, oncofertility decision aids, age-appropriate care, referral pathways, documentation, oncofertility training, reproductive survivorship care and fertility-related psychosocial support, supportive care, and ethical frameworks) that represent 33 different elements of care. RESULTS: The first questionnaire was completed by 457 participants (332 HCPs and 125 PFAs). One hundred and thirty-eight participants completed the second questionnaire (122 HCPs and 16 PFAs). Consensus was agreed on 108 oncofertility competencies and the roles HCPs should play in oncofertility care. A three-tier service development model is proposed, with gradual implementation of different components of care. A total of 92.8% of the 108 agreed competencies also had agreement between high and middle income participants. CONCLUSION: FP guidelines establish best practice but do not consider the skills and requirements to implement these guidelines. The competency framework gives HCPs and services a structure for the training of HCPs and implementation of care, as well as defining a model for prioritizing oncofertility service development. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite international evidence about fertility preservation (FP), several barriers still prevent the implementation of equitable FP practice. The competency framework gives 108 competencies that will allow health care professionals (HCPs) and services a structure for the development of oncofertility care, as well as define the role HCPs play to provide care and support. The framework also proposes a three-tier oncofertility service development model which prioritizes the development of components of oncofertility care into essential, enhanced, and expert services, giving clear recommendations for service development. The competency framework will enhance the implementation of FP guidelines, improving the equitable access to medical and psychological oncofertility care.

How can we improve oncofertility care for patients? A systematic scoping review of current international practice and models of care.

BACKGROUND: Fertility preservation (FP) is an important quality of life issue for cancer survivors of reproductive age. Despite the existence of broad international guidelines, the delivery of oncofertility care, particularly amongst paediatric, adolescent and young adult patients, remains a challenge for healthcare professionals (HCPs). The quality of oncofertility care is variable and the uptake and utilization of FP remains low. Available guidelines fall short in providing adequate detail on how oncofertility models of care (MOC) allow for the real-world application of guidelines by HCPs. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the components of oncofertility care as defined by patient and clinician representatives, and identify the barriers, facilitators and challenges, so as to improve the implementation of oncofertility services. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic scoping review was conducted on oncofertility MOC literature published in English between 2007 and 2016, relating to 10 domains of care identified through consumer research: communication, oncofertility decision aids, age-appropriate care, referral pathways, documentation, training, supportive care during treatment, reproductive care after cancer treatment, psychosocial support and ethical practice of oncofertility care. A wide range of electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, AEIPT, Education Research Complete, ProQuest and VOCED) were searched in order to synthesize the evidence around delivery of oncofertility care. Related citations and reference lists were searched. The review was undertaken following registration (International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42017055837) and guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). OUTCOMES: A total of 846 potentially relevant studies were identified after the removal of duplicates. All titles and abstracts were screened by a single reviewer and the final 147 papers were screened by two reviewers. Ten papers on established MOC were identified amongst the included papers. Data were extracted from each paper and quality scores were then summarized in the oncofertility MOC summary matrix. The results identified a number of themes for improving MOC in each domain, which included: the importance of patients receiving communication that is of a higher quality and in different formats on their fertility risk and FP options; improving provision of oncofertility care in a timely manner; improving access to age-appropriate care; defining the role and scope of practice of all HCPs; and improving communication between different HCPs. Different forms of decision aids were found useful for assisting patients to understand FP options and weigh up choices. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This analysis identifies core components for delivery of oncofertility MOC. The provision of oncofertility services requires planning to ensure services have safe and reliable referral pathways and that they are age-appropriate and include medical and psychological oncofertility care into the survivorship period. In order for this to happen, collaboration needs to occur between clinicians, allied HCPs and executives within paediatric and adult hospitals, as well as fertility clinics across both public and private services. Training of both cancer and non-cancer HCPs is needed to improve the knowledge of HCPs, the quality of care provided and the confidence of HCPs with these consultations.

Sperm quality in New Zealand: Is the downward trend continuing?

AIM: To investigate whether the decline in sperm concentration in New Zealand sperm donors observed from 1987 to 2007 continued in the period 2008-2014. METHOD: A retrospective study from 2008 to 2014. The first semen sample of 285 men presenting as sperm donors in Auckland and Wellington was analysed for sperm concentration, seminal fluid volume and the percentage of motile sperm. These results were compared to results from 1987 to 2007 from the same clinics. RESULTS: The decline in semen volume and sperm concentration observed between 1987 and 2007 did not continue in 2008-2014. Sperm concentration decreased from 1987 until some time between 1997 and 2001, and has remained stable at an average of 62x106/ml between 2001 and 2014. Sperm motility declined significantly (8%) in the period 2008-2014, but there was no significant change over the total period studied, between 1987 and 2014. CONCLUSION: After a decline between 1987 and sometime during 1997-2001, the sperm concentration in men presenting as donors remained unchanged between 2002 and 2014, suggesting semen quality has not changed in New Zealand men over the last decade.

Declining sperm quality in New Zealand over 20 years.

AIM: To investigate whether semen quality has changed in New Zealand over the last 20 years. METHOD: A retrospective study from 1987 to 2007. The sperm concentration, volume of seminal fluid, and the percentage of motile sperm were analysed from the first semen sample of 975 men presenting as sperm donors in Auckland and Wellington. RESULTS: Linear regression showed that the mean concentration of sperm decreased from 110 x 10(6) per millilitre in 1987 to 50 x 10(6) per millilitre in 2007 (p<0.001); an average reduction of 2.5% annually. The volume of semen also fell significantly from 3.7 ml to 3.3 ml (p<0.001). There was no concomitant change in the duration of abstinence. CONCLUSION: The decline in semen volume and sperm concentration in men presenting as sperm donors may indicate a reduction in the semen quality of New Zealand men over the past 20 years.