A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. Methods: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Results: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. Conclusions: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.

When to randomize patients in a randomized controlled trial?

The timing of randomization should be considered carefully in the context of each trial because it has implications for the particular research question answered. In most instances, randomization should be delayed until as close as practically possible to the moment of intervention. In some cases, early randomization may offer certain advantages, but trialists should balance these, including any administrative complexity or inconvenience, against the risk of avoidable protocol violations and avoidable drop out.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

Attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding the anti-müllerian hormone test among general practitioners and reproductive specialists: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide survey. SETTING: Australia. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: A total of 362 general practitioners (GPs), gynaecologists and reproductive specialists. METHODS: Clinicians were recruited through relevant professional organisations, with data collected from May 2021 to April 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the AMH test, measured using multiple choice, Likert scales and open-ended items. RESULTS: Fifteen percent of GPs (n = 27) and 40% of gynaecologists and other specialists (n = 73) order at least one AMH test per month. Specialists reported raising the idea of testing most of the time, whereas GPs reported that patient request was more common. Half of clinicians lacked confidence interpreting (n = 182, 51%) and explaining (n = 173, 48%) an AMH result to their patients. Five percent (n = 19) believed the test was moderately/very useful in predicting natural conception/birth and 22% (n = 82) believed the same for predicting premature menopause, despite evidence that the test cannot reliably predict either. Forty percent (n = 144) had previously ordered the test to help with reproductive planning and 21% (n = 75) to provide reassurance about fertility. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians reported use of AMH testing in clinical circumstances not supported by the evidence. With the proliferation of direct-to-consumer testing, efforts to support clinicians in the judicious use of testing and effectively navigating patient requests are needed.

Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).

BACKGROUND: During a stimulated cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. A normal response to stimulation (e.g. retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes) is considered desirable. Generally, the number of eggs retrieved is associated with the dose of FSH. Both hyper-response and poor response are associated with an increased chance of cycle cancellation. In hyper-response, this is due to increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), while poor response cycles are cancelled because the quantity and quality of oocytes is expected to be low. Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response. Traditionally, this meant women's age, but increasingly, clinicians use various ovarian reserve tests (ORTs). These include basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose improves clinical outcomes. This review updates the 2018 version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers in February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared (a) different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal, or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) or (b) an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and severe OHSS. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies, involving 8520 women (6 new studies added to 20 studies included in the previous version). We treated RCTs with multiple comparisons as separate trials for the purpose of this review. Meta-analysis was limited due to clinical heterogeneity. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to low, with the main limitations being imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding. Direct dose comparisons according to predicted response in women Due to differences in dose comparisons, caution is required when interpreting the RCTs in predicted low responders. All evidence was low or very low certainty. Effect estimates were very imprecise, and increased FSH dosing may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy, OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. Similarly, in predicted normal responders (10 studies, 4 comparisons), higher doses may or may not impact the probability of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (e.g. 200 versus 100 international units (IU): odds ratio (OR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 522 women) or clinical pregnancy. Results were imprecise, and a small benefit or harm remains possible. There were too few events for the OHSS outcome to enable inferences. In predicted high responders, lower doses may or may not affect live birth/ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; 1 study, 521 women), severe OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. It is also unclear whether lower doses reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.67; 1 study, 521 participants). ORT-algorithm studies Eight trials compared an ORT-based algorithm to a non-ORT control group. It is unclear whether live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are increased using an ORT-based algorithm (live birth/ongoing pregnancy: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; I2 = 30%; 7 studies, 4400 women; clinical pregnancy: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; I2 = 18%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). However, ORT algorithms may reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2724 women; low-certainty evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with a standard starting dose is 25%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 25% and 31%. If the chance of moderate or severe OHSS with a standard starting dose is 5%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 2% and 5%. These results should be treated cautiously due to heterogeneity in the algorithms: some algorithms appear to be more effective than others. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find that tailoring the FSH dose in any particular ORT population (low, normal, high ORT) affected live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates, but we could not rule out differences, due to sample size limitations. Low-certainty evidence suggests that it is unclear if ORT-based individualisation leads to an increase in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to a policy of giving all women 150 IU. The confidence interval is consistent with an increase of up to around six percentage points with ORT-based dosing (e.g. from 25% to 31%) or a very small decrease (< 1%). A difference of this magnitude could be important to many women. It is unclear if this is driven by improved outcomes in a particular subgroup. Further, ORT algorithms reduced the incidence of OHSS compared to standard dosing of 150 IU. However, the size of the effect is also unclear. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, which limited the interpretation of pooled estimates. It is likely that different ORT algorithms differ in their effectiveness. Current evidence does not provide a clear justification for adjusting the dose of 150 IU in poor or normal responders, especially as increased dose is associated with greater total FSH dose and cost. It is unclear whether a decreased dose in predicted high responders reduces OHSS, although this would appear to be the most likely explanation for the results.

Correlations among Core Outcomes in Menopause-recommended vasomotor symptom outcomes in MsFLASH trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to advance understanding of vasomotor symptom (VMS) outcomes measurement using pooled data from three Menopause Strategies Finding Lasting Answers to Symptoms and Health (MsFLASH) trials. METHODS: Participants self-reported VMS frequency, severity, and bother using daily diaries; completed standardized measures of VMS interference, insomnia severity, and sleep quality/disturbance; and completed four treatment satisfaction items. Analyses included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations (baseline pooled sample, posttreatment pooled sample, posttreatment placebo only), t tests, and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Participants were mostly postmenopausal (82.9%) and a mean of 54.5 years old. VMS frequency was fairly correlated with severity, bother, and interference for pooled baseline and placebo posttreatment samples ( r values = 0.21-0.39, P values < 0.001) and moderately correlated with severity, bother, and interference for pooled posttreatment ( r values = 0.40-0.44, P values < 0.001). VMS severity, bother, and interference were moderately correlated ( r values = 0.37-0.48, P values < 0.001), with one exception. VMS severity and bother were strongly correlated ( r values = 0.90-0.92, P values < 0.001). VMS interference was moderately correlated with insomnia ( r values = 0.45-0.54, P values < 0.001) and fairly to moderately correlated with sleep quality/disturbance ( r values = 0.31-0.44, P values < 0.001). Other VMS outcomes were weakly to fairly correlated with insomnia ( r values = 0.07-0.33, P values < 0.001 to < 0.05) and sleep quality/disturbance ( r values = 0.06-0.26, P values < 0.001 to > 0.05). Greater improvement in VMS and sleep over time was associated with higher treatment satisfaction ( P values < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis advances understanding of VMS outcomes measurement and has implications for selecting measures and creating future research.

The Sleepio After Cancer (SAC) study. Digital cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (dCBT-I) in women cancer patients - Trial protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: This study will assess the efficacy of digital CBT for insomnia (dCBT-I) compared to sleep hygiene education (SHE) for the management of insomnia in women with cancer. BACKGROUND: 30% of patients with cancer meet insomnia diagnostic criteria and this can be detrimental to health outcomes. Insomnia disorder comprises a dissatisfaction with sleep quantity or quality characterized by difficulty initiating sleep, frequent awakenings, or early morning wakening without the ability to return to sleep, at least 3 nights per week, for at least 3 months, causing significant impairment or distress in areas of functioning. METHODS: We will recruit 308 women with a current or prior cancer diagnosis who are currently experiencing insomnia; defined as a score of 16 or less on the Sleep Condition Indicator (SCI). Participants will be randomised to dCBT-I or SHE. dCBT-I will be delivered online via 6 sessions. SHE will be provided in an online format. Assessments of sleep and other related parameters, through validated questionnaires, will be taken at 12 and 24 weeks following intervention. Once 24 week assessments are completed, participants will crossover to the alternate arm (either SHE or dCBT-I) and undergo a final assessment at week 36. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome will be the mean continuous change in SCI score in the intervention arm compared to the control arm at 24 weeks. Additionally, the proportion of women with an SCI > 16 at 24 weeks will be assessed. Secondary outcomes include fatigue, sleep related quality of life, depression, anxiety, and hot flush interference. REGISTRATION: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT05816460.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INSPECT-SR project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare related interventions. Methods and analysis: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: 1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, 2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, 3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in 4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format, 5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies, and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

Providers' attitudes towards payment to egg donors: an international survey.

The research question 'How do fertility professionals worldwide perceive the issue of payment for egg donation and does this view change under different circumstances?' was addressed. A worldwide online survey was conducted between January and March 2023, focusing on the views of fertility providers concerning egg donor payments. From the 3,790 IVF-Worldwide.com members invited, 532 (14%) from 88 countries responded. The majority of participants, primarily from Europe (38.9%) and Asia (20.1%), were fertility specialists, embryologists, and fertility nurses. Most (60.3%) favoured regulated donor compensation, with only 13% advocating for unrestricted amounts. Compensation opposition (22.4%) was often rooted in concerns about donors' best interests. When considering egg donation from low-resource to high-resource countries, 38.5% were opposed. When asked about compensating women who underwent elective, non-medical egg freezing should they choose to donate their unused oocytes, most responders supported it to some degree, with only 28.4% opposing any compensation. The survey revealed that a significant majority of fertility professionals worldwide are supportive of some form of compensation for egg donors. However, perspectives diverge depending on the specific scenario and the country of practice.

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

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

Community awareness and use of anti-Müllerian hormone testing in Australia: a population survey of women.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test usage, awareness, and perceived reasons for testing in a representative community sample of women in Australia? SUMMARY ANSWER: : Among women aged 18-55 years, 13% had heard about AMH testing and 7% had had an AMH test, with the top three reasons for testing including due to infertility investigations (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand their chances (19%) or to find out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The growing availability of direct-to-consumer AMH testing has raised concerns about overuse, however as most AMH tests are paid for privately by consumers, data on test usage is not publicly available. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: National cross-sectional survey of 1773 women, conducted in January 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Females aged 18-55 years were recruited from the representative 'Life in Australia' probability-based population panel and completed the survey online or by telephone. Main outcome measures included if and how participants had heard about AMH testing, whether they had ever had an AMH test, main reason for testing and test access. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 2423 women who were invited 1773 responded (73% response rate). Of these, 229 (13%) had heard about AMH testing and 124 (7%) had had an AMH test. Testing rates were highest among those currently aged 35-39 years (14%) and associated with educational attainment. Almost all accessed the test through their general practitioner or fertility specialist. Reasons for testing were: part of an infertility investigation (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand chances of conceiving (19%), finding out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%), curiosity (9%), considering egg freezing (5%), and considering delaying pregnancy (2%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the sample was large and mostly representative, it was over-represented by people holding a university degree and under-represented by people aged 18-24, however, we used weighted data where possible to account for this. All data were self-reported so there is a risk of recall bias. The number of survey items was also restricted, so the type of counselling women received prior to testing, reasons for declining an AMH test or test timing were not measured. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Whilst most women reported having an AMH test for appropriate reasons, about one third had it for reasons not supported by evidence. Public and clinician education about the lack of utility of AMH testing for women not undergoing infertility treatment is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence grant (1104136) and Program grant (1113532). T.C. is supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellowship (2009419). B.W.M. reports research funding, consultancy and travel support from Merck. D.L. is the Medical Director of City Fertility NSW and reports consultancy for Organon, Ferring, Besins and Merck. The authors have no other competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In IVF/ICSI treatment, the process of embryo implantation is the success rate-limiting step. Endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve this process, but it is unclear if this procedure increases the chance of implantation and live birth (LB) and, if so, for whom, and how the scratch should be performed. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aims to answer the question of whether endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI influences the chance of a LB, and whether this effect is different in specific subgroups of women. After its incidental discovery in 2000, endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve embryo implantation. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, showing contradicting results. Conventional meta-analyses were limited by high within- and between-study heterogeneity, small study samples, and a high risk of bias for many of the trials. Also, the data integrity of several trials have been questioned. Thus, despite numerous RCTs and a multitude of conventional meta-analyses, no conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of endometrial scratching could be drawn. An IPD-MA approach is able to overcome many of these problems because it allows for increased uniformity of outcome definitions, can filter out studies with data integrity concerns, enables a more precise estimation of the true treatment effect thanks to adjustment for participant characteristics and not having to make the assumptions necessary in conventional meta-analyses, and because it allows for subgroup analysis. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic literature search identified RCTs on endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share original data for this IPD-MA. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB) and integrity checks were performed. The primary outcome was LB, with a one-stage intention to treat (ITT) as the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included as treated (AT), and the subset of women that underwent an embryo transfer (AT+ET). Treatment-covariate interaction for specific participant characteristics was analyzed in AT+ET. OUTCOMES: Out of 37 published and 15 unpublished RCTs (7690 participants), 15 RCTs (14 published, one unpublished) shared data. After data integrity checks, we included 13 RCTs (12 published, one unpublished) representing 4112 participants. RoB was evaluated as 'low' for 10/13 RCTs. The one-stage ITT analysis for scratch versus no scratch/sham showed an improvement of LB rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.64]). AT, AT+ET, and low-RoB-sensitivity analyses yielded similar results (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.96-1.54]; OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.99-1.57]; OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.03-1.55], respectively). Treatment-covariate interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction with age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, or infertility cause. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This is the first meta-analysis based on IPD of more than 4000 participants, and it demonstrates that endometrial scratching may improve LB rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Subgroup analysis for age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, and infertility cause could not identify subgroups in which endometrial scratching performed better or worse. The timing of endometrial scratching may play a role in its effectiveness. The use of endometrial scratching in clinical practice should be considered with caution, meaning that patients should be properly counseled on the level of evidence and the uncertainties.

"It all depends on why it's red": qualitative interviews exploring patient and professional views of a traffic light system for IVF add-ons.

Background IVF add-ons are techniques, medicines or procedures used in addition to standard IVF with the aim of improving the chance of success. The United Kingdom's IVF regulator, ( the Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority (HFEA) developed a traffic light system to categorise add-ons as either green, amber, or red, based on results of randomised controlled trials. Method Qualitative interviews were undertaken to explore understanding and views of the HFEA traffic light system among IVF clinicians, embryologists and IVF patients across Australia and the United Kingdom. Results A total of 73 interviews were conducted. Overall, participants were supportive of the intention of the traffic light system, however many limitations were raised. It was widely recognized that a simple traffic light system necessarily omits information which may be important to understanding the evidence base. In particular, the red category was used in scenarios that patients viewed as having different implications for their decision-making, including 'no evidence' and 'evidence of harm'. Patients were surprised at the absence of any green add-ons and questioned the value of a traffic light system in this context. Many participants considered the website a helpful starting point, but desired more detail, including the contributing studies, results specific to patient demographics (e.g., <35 years and >35 years), and inclusion of more options (e.g. acupuncture). Overall, participants believed the website to be reliable and trustworthy, particularly due to the Government affiliation, and despite some concerns regarding transparency and an overly cautious regulator. Conclusion Participants identified many limitations with the current application of the traffic light system. These could be considered in any future updates to the HFEA website and for others developing similar decision support tools.

Elective egg freezers' disposition decisions: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors that influence elective egg freezers' disposition decisions toward their surplus-frozen oocytes. DESIGN: Qualitative. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Thirty-one participants: 7 past; 6 current; and 18 future oocyte disposition decision-makers. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Six inter-related themes were identified related to the decision-making process which are as follows: decisions are dynamic; triggers for the final decision; achieving motherhood; conceptualization of oocytes; the impacts of egg donation on others; and external factors affecting the final disposition outcome. All women reported a type of trigger event for making a final decision (e.g., completing their family). Women who achieved motherhood were more open to donating their oocytes to others but were concerned about the implications for their child and felt responsibility for potential donor children. Women who did not achieve motherhood were unlikely to donate to others due to the grief of not becoming a mother, often feeling alone, misunderstood, and unsupported. Reclaiming oocytes (e.g., taking them home) and closure ceremonies helped some women process their grief. Donating to research was viewed as an altruistic option as oocytes would not be wasted and did not have the "complication" of a genetically-linked child. There was a general lack of knowledge around disposition options at all stages of the process. CONCLUSION(S): Oocyte disposition decisions are dynamic and complex for women, exacerbated by a general lack of understanding of these options. The final decision is framed by: whether women achieved motherhood, dealing with grief if they did not achieve motherhood, and considering the complexities of donating to others. Additional decision support through counseling, decision aids, and early consideration of disposition when eggs are initially stored may help women make informed decisions.

Is the use of IVF add-on treatments driven by patients or clinics? Findings from a UK patient survey.

There are conflicting narratives over what drives demand for add-ons. We undertook an online survey of IVF patients to determine whether patients perceive that use of IVF add-ons is driven by patients or practitioners. People who underwent IVF in the UK in the previous five years were recruited via social media Survey questions focussed on the roles of clinician offer and patient request, including who first suggested use of add-ons in IVF consultations, where patients first heard about them, and which information sources they trusted. From a total of 261 responses, 224 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 67% of respondents had used one or more IVF add-ons, most commonly: time-lapse imaging (27%), EmbryoGlue (27%), and endometrial scratching (26%). Overall, 81% of the add-ons used were offered to participants by clinicians (compared to 19% requested by themselves). Half (54%) reported being offered add-ons during consultations, compared to 24% who initiated discussion about add-ons. Higher proportions of private patients reported being offered (90%), requesting (47%) and using (74%) add-ons than those with NHS funding (74%, 29%, 52%, respectively). The main limitations of this study are the small sample size, recruitment via a convenience sample, and the self-reported data capture which is subject to recall bias.

How do IVF patients interpret claims about fertility treatments? A randomised survey experiment.

Trials evaluating the efficacy of IVF and various treatment options often focus on upstream outcome measures, improvements which may not translate into clinical outcome improvements. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed globally among IVF patients. Respondents were randomised to view one of 16 statements about a hypothetical IVF treatment option called 'FertiSure', stated to improve one of four upstream outcomes. Statements varied in whether they contained information stating that FertiSure was not proven to improve live-birth rates and about potential risks. Many patients inferred that improvements in upstream outcomes would result in improvements in the probability of live-birth. Nearly 80% of respondents were willing to use FertiSure. Respondents told that FertiSure was not proven to improve live-birth rates and were less willing to use FertiSure. More respondents agreed that FertiSure may pose a risk to patients when they were told this was the case. However, this did not affect their willingness to use FertiSure. Interestingly, 34% of respondents believed FertiSure would not improve the probability of live-birth but were still willing to use it. These results have implications for IVF clinic websites and information about treatment options which may not routinely contain statements about the limited evidence-base and possible risks.

Barriers to reproductive treatments in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Most couples in Australia want to have children but some might not attain their reproductive goals, experiencing involuntary childlessness or not reaching their desired family size. There is increased focus on helping couples achieve their reproductive goals. Identifying existing barriers, such as those related to social and societal factors, access to treatment and treatment success, is crucial to optimising outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This article discusses existing barriers to reproduction to help general practitioners (GPs) raise the topic of future fertility with patients, care for those presenting with fertility concerns and support those undergoing fertility treatment. DISCUSSION: Recognition of the impact of barriers such as age to achieving reproductive goals remains the highest priority for GPs. This will help them to broach this topic with patients, carry out a timely evaluation or provide referral, as well as discuss opportunities such as elective egg freezing. Other barriers can be mitigated by educating patients, informing them about available resources and supporting those undergoing fertility treatment as part of a multidisciplinary reproductive team.

Endometrial scratching in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (UK): a follow-up survey.

Endometrial scratching is a common IVF add-on. In 2015, a survey in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (UK) reported that 83% of fertility specialists recommended endometrial scratching for IVF. Several large trials have since been published reporting no clear evidence for improved live birth rates following endometrial scratching before IVF. An online survey was undertaken to ascertain the current practices and views across Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. A total of 121 eligible responses were received between October and December 2020 (fertility specialists (n = 61), embryologists (n = 26) and fertility nurses (n = 24)). Among fertility specialists, 34% currently offer endometrial scratching, mostly in the case of recurrent implantation failure. Most respondents were neutral or did not believe endometrial scratching improved pregnancy and live birth rates (>90%), except for in women with recurrent implantation failure (29% believed it can increase pregnancy and live birth rates in this group). More than half of respondents viewed reducing psychological distress as a benefit of endometrial scratching (55%). Among fertility specialists not offering endometrial scratching, 51% previously offered it but no longer do. The decline in use over the last five years likely reflects a response to recent evidence reporting no benefit from the procedure.

Creativity in lockdown: Understanding how music and the arts supported mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic by age group.

Recent research has indicated that many people around the world turned to artistic creative activities (ACAs) to support their mental health during COVID-19 lockdowns. However, studies have also shown that the negative psychosocial impacts of the pandemic have disproportionately affected young people, suggesting that the use of ACAs to support mental health in lockdown may have varied across age groups. This study investigated how Australians in four different age groups (18-24, 25-34, 35-54, and 55+) engaged in ACAs to support their mental health during the 2020 pandemic lockdowns. Participants (N = 653) recruited from the general public completed an online survey between May and October 2020, in which they reported which ACAs they had undertaken during the pandemic using an established list. Participants subsequently ranked undertaken ACAs in terms of effectiveness at making them "feel better," and those who had engaged in musical ACAs also completed the Musical Engagement Questionnaire (MusEQ). Additionally, ratings of anxiety (GAD7) and depression (PHQ9) symptoms were obtained and examined for potential variations across four diverse variables: age, exercise, gender and state/territory of residence. ACA rankings showed that younger participants overwhelmingly rated musical activities as most effective, while, with the exception of singing, those aged 55+ rated non-musical activities as being most effective. These differences were further supported by ratings for all six MusEQ subscales, with responses strongly indicating that the youngest participants (aged 18-24) used music in significantly different ways during the pandemic than participants in all other age groups. Specifically, these youngest participants were more likely to integrate music into daily life, use music for emotion regulation, respond to music in embodied ways, and use music to perform a social identity. In line with prior research, further analyses indicated that symptoms of anxiety and depression were lessened for older participants, as well for those who reported exercising more during the lockdowns. These findings provide insight into how ACAs can support mental health during a pandemic crisis for specific age groups, which may inform future policy directions, and suggestions for how this can be done are provided.