A systematic review and secondary analysis of two studies identifying demographic and medical characteristics determining patient-centeredness in endometriosis care as experienced by patients.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the patient-specific determinants associated with patient-centered endometriosis care as measured by the ENDOCARE questionnaire (ECQ)? SUMMARY ANSWER: 'Overall grade for endometriosis care', 'educational level', 'membership of a patient organization' and 'having seen other specialists for endometriosis complaints' are correlated with overall patient-centeredness scores (PCS). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Patient-centeredness of endometriosis care can be evaluated using the validated ECQ. The ECQ leads to an overall PCS and separate PCS for 10 dimensions of endometriosis care. Previously, educational level and quality of life scores were found to be associated with ECQ results. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: First, a systematic literature review was performed (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020169872). MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to May 2020 for studies in any language reporting on the results of the ECQ in patients with endometriosis. Two studies were identified. From the two studies, all original data were merged. In total, data from 546 patients were available for analysis. Second, univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify determinants for patient-centeredness of endometriosis care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The two included studies evaluated patient-centeredness in four endometriosis care centers in Belgium and the Netherlands. All participants had surgically proven endometriosis. Possible patient-specific determinants were selected from the demographic and medical questions from the first part of the ECQ. These determinants were evaluated using linear regression analysis and all possible determinants with a P > 0.2 in the univariate analysis were selected for stepwise multivariate analysis. Separate analyses were performed for overall PCS and each of the 10 dimensions. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The two included studies provided data from 546 patients. After adjustment for care center, multivariate analysis showed that a higher 'grade for endometriosis care' (B = 0.66), a 'lower educational level' (B = 0.50), 'being member of a patient organization' (B = 0.49) and 'having seen other specialists for endometriosis complaints' (B = 0.34) were independently associated with higher overall PCS (R 2 = 0.41). 'Grade for endometriosis care' was a determinant for all dimensions of endometriosis care. 'Having seen other specialists for endometriosis complaints' was positively associated with the care dimensions 'respect for patients' values, preferences and expressed needs', 'continuity and transition' and 'technical skills'. Members of a patient organization showed higher scores on the care dimensions 'emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety', 'continuity and transition' and 'endometriosis clinic staff'. Furthermore, we found that having a higher level of education is associated with lower scores in the care dimensions 'physical comfort', 'emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety' and 'involvement of significant other'. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: These results delineate the patient-specific determinants of patient-centered care as measured using the Dutch ECQ. Whether results are generalizable to other countries should be investigated in an international study. This requires the ECQ to be validated in other languages first. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The aforementioned determinants of patient-centered care are of value for studies benchmarking clinics for their patient-centeredness. In addition, they help clinicians to determine how to tailor their care to individual patients. At every visit, patients could be asked to grade the endometriosis care (on a scale of 0-10) to easily investigate patient-centeredness. When there is more time, women with endometriosis should be asked to complete the entire ECQ to investigate patient-centeredness in depth. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The department of reproductive medicine (involving C.B.L. and V.M.) of the Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. The authors have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript.

Towards more patient-centred endometriosis care: a cross-sectional survey using the ENDOCARE questionnaire.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the performance of the patient-centredness of endometriosis care in a secondary and a tertiary care setting and how can it be improved? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall, patient-centredness was comparable in the two endometriosis care centres, but differed regarding 'physical comfort' and 'continuity and transition'; both centres can learn how to improve several of their targets from the other's strengths. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The ENDOCARE questionnaire (ECQ) is a validated questionnaire for assessing the important quality dimension 'patient-centredness'. Patient-centredness is associated with quality of life, although this should be explored further by larger-scale studies. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A cross-sectional survey, relying on the ECQ, was performed (during 2015 and 2016) among 407 women with surgically diagnosed endometriosis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: This study was conducted in a secondary and a tertiary care centre in the Netherlands. A total of 209 Dutch-speaking women who had endometriosis surgery (2013-2014), completed the ECQ after a postal invitation and, if needed, postal reminders. The assessed outcomes were: overall patient-centredness, the patient-centredness for each of its 10 dimensions, and the patient-centred strengths and targets for improvement. Case-mix adjusted patient-centredness scores (PCS) were compared and strengths and targets for improvement were identified with a matrix modelling importance against experience. The need to improve the targets was quantified with quality impact indices. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: No difference was demonstrated between the overall PCS of the secondary and tertiary centres (respectively: 4.8 and 4.5; P = 0.15). No difference was found in PCS per dimension between the two clinics except for the secondary care centre performing better regarding 'physical comfort' (respectively: 4.5 and 3.0; P = 0.01) and 'continuity and transition' (respectively: 6.0 and 4.2; P = 0.01). The two centres had nine targets for improvement in common. The secondary and tertiary centres, respectively, had five and seven additional centre-specific targets for improvement. Cross-centre learning is encouraged as 9 out the 12 additional centre-specific targets were strengths in the other centre. The main improvement targets were being able to contact the centre in case of emergency (both centres), the involvement of a significant other (secondary centre), diagnostic delay (secondary centre), personal follow-up (tertiary centre) and disclosing the level of competence of healthcare providers (tertiary centre). LIMITATIONS REASON FOR CAUTION: Responders did not differ from non-responders in their stage of endometriosis, educational level, rating of endometriosis care and degree to which their complaints are suppressed. Endometriosis is a chronic condition and patient-centredness might be experienced differently at other points of the endometriosis care trajectory. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: The ECQ is a useful tool to assess patient-centredness in both secondary and tertiary care centres. Further research should focus on how to improve endometriosis care. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No external funding was used. V.M. and C.B.L. report grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication.

International consensus: ovarian tissue cryopreservation in young Turner syndrome patients: outcomes of an ethical Delphi study including 55 experts from 16 different countries.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the standpoint of an international expert panel on ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) in young females with Turner syndrome (TS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The expert panel states that OTC should be offered to young females with TS, but under strict conditions only. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: OTC is already an option for preserving the fertility of young females at risk of iatrogenic primary ovarian insufficiency (POI). Offering OTC to females with a genetic cause of POI could be the next step. One of the most common genetic disorders related to POI is TS. Due to an early depletion of the ovarian reserve, most females with TS are confronted with infertility before reaching adulthood. However, before offering OTC as an experimental fertility preservation option to young females with TS, medical and ethical concerns need to be addressed. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round ethical Delphi study was conducted to systematically discuss whether the expected benefits exceed the expected negative consequences of OTC in young females with TS. The aim was to reach group consensus and form an international standpoint based on selected key statements. The study took place between February and December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Anonymous panel selection was based on expertise in TS, fertility preservation or medical ethics. A mixed panel of 12 gynaecologists, 13 (paediatric) endocrinologists, 10 medical ethicists and 20 patient representatives from 16 different countries gave consent to participate in this international Delphi study. In the first two rounds, experts were asked to rate and rank 38 statements regarding OTC in females with TS. Participants were offered the possibility to adjust their opinions after repetitive feedback. The selection of key statements was based on strict inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 46 participants completed the first Delphi round (response rate 84%). Based on strict selection criteria, six key statements were selected, and 13 statements were discarded. The remaining 19 statements and two additional statements submitted by the expert panel were re-evaluated in the second round by 41 participants (response rate 75%). The analysis of the second survey resulted in the inclusion of two additional key statements. After the approval of these eight key statements, the majority of the expert panel (96%) believed that OTC should be offered to young females with TS, but in a safe and controlled research setting first, with proper counselling and informed consent procedures, before offering this procedure in routine care. The remaining participants (4%) did not object but did not respond despite several reminders. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The anonymous nature of this study may have led to lack of accountability. The selection of experts was based on their willingness to participate. The fact that not all panellists took part in all rounds may have resulted in selection bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This international standpoint is the first step in the global acceptance of OTC in females with TS. Future collaborative research with a focus on efficacy and safety and long-term follow-up is urgently needed. Furthermore, we recommend an international register for fertility preservation procedures in females with TS. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Unconditional funding (A16-1395) was received from Merck B.V., The Netherlands. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Professionals' barriers in female oncofertility care and strategies for improvement.

STUDY QUESTION: What are healthcare professionals' barriers and strategies for improvement in female oncofertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Professionals perceived barriers in knowledge, attitude and organization of oncofertility care and suggested strategies to improve oncofertility care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The potential loss of fertility is one of the most important undesirable side effects of cancer treatment in women of reproductive age. Unfortunately, despite guideline recommendations, not all patients are informed about their fertility risks and referred for fertility preservation (FP) counselling. Insight into barriers for discussing FP and appropriate referral is necessary before improvements can be made. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The aim of this was study was to identify barriers and gather improvement suggestions through semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted with 24 professionals working in oncofertility care. Subsequently, an expert panel meeting was held to reach consensus on a set of improvement strategies. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Oncological professionals were recruited from the three Dutch expertise hospitals for female FP and their affiliated hospitals. The expert panel consisted of six healthcare professionals, five survivors and two researchers. In the Dutch setting, financial aspects do not play a role in oncofertility care. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Barriers were identified and categorized into the patient level (e.g. focus on surviving cancer), the professional level (e.g. lack of awareness, knowledge, time, and attitude), or the organizational level (e.g. unavailable written information, disagreement on who is responsible for discussing infertility risks). The expert panel reached consensus on essential elements for a multifaceted improvement programme: development of information materials (leaflets, online decision aid), education of professionals, a role for specialized oncology nurses in informing patients and patient navigators at the fertility department to facilitate referral and counselling, medical record reminders, standard consultations with a gynaecologist and agreement on responsibility. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Selection bias could have occurred because it is likely that only professionals with interest in oncofertility care participated. However, this would mean that the barriers were underestimated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study forms the basis for the development of a multifaceted oncofertility programme, which is essential to increase adherence to the national clinical guideline. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the Radboud university medical center. The authors have declared no competing interests. Prof. Dr Braat reports unrestricted grants from Ferring BV, Serono and Goodlife, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Optimization of laboratory procedures for intrauterine insemination: survey of methods in relation to clinical outcome.

BACKGROUND: There is a wide practice variation of used methods and outcomes in IUI in fertility laboratories. Standardization of the IUI procedure is important for reducing inconsistency among laboratories in counseling infertile couples and in pregnancy results. The aim of the study was to evaluate the currently used laboratory procedures of IUI in Dutch fertility laboratories and their effect on IUI pregnancy results. Additionally, the methods for semen analysis (SA) were evaluated, as SA is related to IUI in terms of inseminated sperm number and IUI counseling. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This questionnaire survey study was sent to laboratories participating in the Dutch external quality control program for semen analysis (SKML) and consisted of 46 questions concerning laboratory management, methods for semen analysis and IUI, and clinical results. The results were analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 52 laboratories (out of 99) provided information on used methodologies for SA or laboratory procedures of IUI and the organization of the laboratory. A wide variability was confirmed in used methods for both SA and IUI. Evaluation of pregnancy results obtained during 3 years (2013-2015) showed that specific used laboratory methods have a significant effect on the probability of becoming pregnant. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Important to remark is that in this survey study cycle-specific data, including variables of the individual couples (age, stimulation protocol, etc), were not included and may have effects on the results. The reported results provide an overview of the current practice performance; however, the organization of fertility laboratories is changing rapidly. The use of standardized methods in IUI is important for optimizing the performance of care and improving pregnancy results. The knowledge on used procedures, however, is limited, and further research on factors involving SA and the IUI procedure is necessary.

Techniques used for IUI: is it time for a change?

STUDY QUESTION: Are the guidelines for the technical aspects of IUI (WHO, 2010) still in accordance with the current literature? SUMMARY ANSWER: In general, the laboratory guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) are a suitable protocol, although the evidence is not always conclusive and some changes are advisable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Lack of standardization of the technical procedures required for IUI might result in inter-laboratory variation in pregnancy rates. Most centers still use their own materials and methods even though some guidelines are available. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A structural review focusing on the association between pregnancy rates and the procedures of semen collection (e.g. ejaculatory abstinence, collection place), semen processing (e.g. preparation method, temperature during centrifugation/storage), insemination (e.g. timing of IUI, bed rest after IUI) and the equipment used. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A literature search was performed in Medline and the Cochrane library. When no adequate studies of the impact of a parameter on pregnancy results were found, its association with sperm parameters was reviewed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: For most variables, the literature review revealed a low level of evidence, a limited number of studies and/or an inadequate outcome measure. Moreover, the comparison of procedures (i.e. semen preparation technique, time interval between semen, collection, processing and IUI) revealed no consensus about their results. It was not possible to develop an evidence-based, optimal IUI treatment protocol. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The included studies exhibited a lack of standardization in inclusion criteria and methods used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This review emphasizes the need for more knowledge about and standardization of assisted reproduction technologies. Our literature search indicates that some of the recommendations in the laboratory guidelines could be adapted to improve standardization, comfort, quality control and to cut costs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories (SKML), Nijmegen, The Netherlands. S.K. and W.N. have no conflicts of interest to disclose. C.B. and A.W. are members of the board of the SKML. With a grant from SKML, L.L. was paid for her time to perform the research and write the publication. D.B. received grants from Merck Serono, Ferring and MSD, outside the submitted work. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Implementing targeted expectant management in fertility care using prognostic modelling: a cluster randomized trial with a multifaceted strategy.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on improving the adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management for couples with unexplained infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: The multifaceted implementation strategy did not significantly increase adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management compared to care as usual. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without ovarian hyperstimulation has no beneficial effect compared to no treatment for 6 months after the fertility work-up for couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception. Therefore, various professionals and policy makers have advocated the use of prognostic profiles and expectant management in guideline recommendations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 clinics in the Netherlands was conducted between March 2013 and May 2014. Clinics were randomized between the implementation strategy (intervention, n = 13) and care as usual (control, n = 12). The effect of the implementation strategy was evaluated by comparing baseline and effect measurement data. Data collection was retrospective and obtained from medical record research and a patient questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 544 couples were included at baseline and 485 at the effect measurement (247 intervention group/238 control group). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Guideline adherence increased from 49 to 69% (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.45-4.89) in the intervention group, and from 49 to 61% (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.38-3.00) in the control group. Multilevel analysis with case-mix adjustment showed that the difference of 8% was not statistically significant (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.67-2.59). The ongoing pregnancy rate within six months after fertility work-up did not significantly differ between intervention and control group (25% versus 27%: OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.40-1.27). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: There is a possible selection bias, couples included in the study had a higher socio-economic status than non-responders. How this affects guideline adherence is unclear. Furthermore, when powering for this study we did not take into account the unexpected improvement of adherence in the control group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Generalization of our results to other countries with recommendations on expectant management might be questionable because barriers for expectant management can be very different in other countries. Furthermore, due to a large variation in improved adherence rate in the intervention group it will be interesting to further analyse the process of implementation in each clinic with a process evaluation on professionals and couples' exposure to and experiences with the strategy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 171203005). No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial Register, www.trialregister.nl NTR3405. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 April 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 July 2012.

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of embryo transfer strategies: a decision analytic model using long-term costs and consequences of singletons and multiples born as a consequence of IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) versus double embryo transfer (DET) strategies from a societal perspective, when applying a time horizon of 1, 5 and 18 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: From a short-term perspective (1 year) it is cost-effective to replace DET with single embryo transfer; however when intermediate- (5 years) and long-term (18 years) costs and consequences are incorporated, DET becomes the most cost-effective strategy, given a ceiling ratio of €20 000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: According to previous cost-effectiveness research into embryo transfer strategies, DET is considered cost-effective if society is willing to pay around €20 000 for an extra live birth. However, interpretation of those studies is complicated, as those studies fail to incorporate long-term costs and outcomes and used live birth as a measure of effectiveness instead of QALYs. With this outcome, both multiple and singletons were valued as one live birth, whereas costs of all children of a multiple were incorporated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A Markov model (cycle length: 1 year; time horizon: 1, 5 and 18 years) was developed comparing a maximum of: (i) three cycles of eSET in all patients; (ii) four cycles of eSET in all patients; (iii) five cycles of eSET in all patients; (iv) three cycles of standard treatment policy (STP), i.e. eSET in women <38 years with a good quality embryo, and DET in all other women; and (v) three cycles of DET in all patients. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Expected life years (LYs), child QALYs and costs were estimated for all comparators. Input parameters were derived from a retrospective cohort study, in which hospital resource data were collected (n=580) and a parental questionnaire was sent out (431 respondents). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (5000 iterations) was performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: With a time horizon of 18 years, DETx3 is most effective (0.54 live births, 10.2 LYs and 9.8 QALYs) and expensive (€37 871) per couple starting IVF. Three cycles of eSET are least effective (0.43 live births, 7.1 LYs and 6.8 QALYs) and expensive (€25 563). We assumed that society is willing to pay €20 000 per QALY gained. With a time horizon of 1 year, eSETx3 was the most cost-effective embryo transfer strategy with a probability of being cost-effective of 99.9%. With a time horizon of 5 or 18 years, DETx3 was most cost-effective, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 77.3 and 93.2%, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is the first study to use QALYs generated by the children in the economic evaluation of embryo transfer strategies. There remains some disagreement on whether QALYs generated by new life should be used in economic evaluations of fertility treatment. A further limitation is that treatment ends when it results in live birth and that only child QALYs were considered as measure of effectiveness. The results for the time horizon of 18 years might be less solid, as the data beyond the age of 8 years are based on extrapolation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The current Markov model indicates that when child QALYs are used as measure of outcome it is not cost-effective on the long term to replace DET with single embryo transfer strategies. However, for a balanced approach, a family-planning perspective would be preferable, including additional treatment cycles for couples who wish to have another child. Furthermore, the analysis should be extended to include QALYs of family members. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by a research grant (grant number 80-82310-98-09094) from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). There are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Selection of key recommendations for the management of women with endometriosis by an international panel of patients and professionals.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the differences in patients' and professionals' perspective regarding essential endometriosis care be accommodated in one set of key recommendations? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus between patients and professions on a key set of recommendations for essential endometriosis care was achieved. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Guideline development alone will not lead to healthcare improvement. Quality indicators are needed to monitor actual care and guideline adherence. These can help with better implementation of the ESHRE guidelines in European hospitals and thereby improve the quality of endometriosis care. The first step in the development of quality indicators is to select a compact set of key recommendations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: Using a RAND modified Delphi method, this study reports the systematic selection of key recommendations based on the ESHRE guideline 'Management of Women with Endometriosis' by an international expert panel of both patients and professionals during the study period of September 2015 and December 2015. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: An international panel of patients (n = 10) and medical professionals (n = 11) rated and prioritized the 83 recommendations extracted from the ESHRE guideline for relevance in three rounds. A strict consensus methodology was used to select key recommendations. The main outcome measure was one set of key recommendations for endometriosis care. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A representative set of 17 key recommendations was selected from the preliminary set of 83 recommendations. This selection covers all dimensions of endometriosis care, including diagnosis, treatment of endometriosis-associated pain, treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility and miscellaneous topics such as prevention, menopause and relationship with cancer. Of the 21 experts, 17 participated in at least one round while 16 (76.2%) participated in all 3 rounds. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The feasibility of the selected key recommendations was not assessed in this study. As not all panel members took part in all three rounds, some response bias may have occurred. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This set of key recommendations is the first step in the development of quality indicators for monitoring and improving endometriosis care. The set is generic and can be used in hospitals internationally. A practice test should be conducted to assess the feasibility of our key recommendations in clinical practice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was received for the conduct of this study. Members of the EndoKey study group did not receive payment. The authors and members of the EndoKey study group have no conflict of interest.

Tailored expectant management in couples with unexplained infertility does not influence their experiences with the quality of fertility care.

STUDY QUESTION: Do couples who were eligible for tailored expectant management (TEM) and did not start treatment within 6 months after the fertility work-up, have different experiences with the quality of care than couples that were also eligible for TEM but started treatment right after the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: Tailored expectant management of at least 6 months in couples with unexplained infertility is not associated with the experiences with quality of care or trust in their physician. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception within 1 year, expectant management for 6-12 months does not compromise ongoing birth rates and is equally as effective as starting medically assisted reproduction immediately. Therefore, TEM is recommended by various international clinical guidelines. Implementation of TEM is still not optimal because of existing barriers on both patient and professional level. An important barrier is the hesitance of professionals to counsel their patients for TEM because they fear that patients will be dissatisfied with care. However, if and how adherence to TEM actually affects the couples' experience with care is unknown. Experiences with the quality care can be measured by evaluating the patient-centredness of care and the patients' trust in their physician. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. A survey with written questionnaires was performed among all couples who participated in the retrospective audit of guideline adherence on TEM in 25 Dutch clinics. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples were eligible to participate if they were diagnosed with unexplained infertility and had a good prognosis (>30%) of natural conception within 1 year based on the Hunault prediction model. We used patient's questionnaires to collect data on the couples' experience with the quality of care and possible confounders for their experiences other than having undergone TEM or not. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to investigate case-mix adjusted association of TEM with the patient-centredness of care (PCQ-Infertility) and the patients' trust in their physician (Wake Forest Trust Scale). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Couples who adhered to TEM experienced the quality of care on the same level as couples who were exposed to early treatment, i.e. started fertility treatment within 6 months after fertility work-up. There were no associations between adherence to TEM and the patient-centredness of care or the patients' trust in their physician. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Because this study is retrospective, recall bias might occur. Furthermore, we were unable to measure the difference in experience with care over time. Therefore, our results have to be interpreted carefully. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Prospective research on couples undergoing TEM have to be performed to provide more detailed insight in the patients' experiences with the decision making process and subsequently the expectant period. Tackling the barriers surrounding TEM, i.e. better counselling and more patient information material, could further improve patient experiences with the quality of care for couples who are advised TEM. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). ZonMW had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.trialregister.nl NTR3405.

Decision-making in female fertility preservation is balancing the expected burden of fertility preservation treatment and the wish to conceive.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the decisive factors in fertility preservation (FP) decision-making in young women scheduled for gonadotoxic therapy? SUMMARY ANSWER: FP decision-making in young women scheduled for gonadotoxic therapy is mainly based on weighing two issues: the intensity of the wish to conceive a child in the future and the expected burden of undergoing FP treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Future fertility is of importance for young cancer patients whose reproductive function is being threatened by oncological therapy. To prevent or reduce severe psychological effects of infertility as well as feelings of regret about their FP decision after cancer treatment, the quality of fertility preservation counselling (FPC) should be improved. To improve care, those issues forming a decisive factor in FP decision-making for patients should be clarified, as these issues deserve extensive discussion during FPC. Until now, decisive factors have not been isolated from the complex interplay of all aspects of FP that women contemplate during FP decision-making. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: By using a mixed methods methodology, a questionnaire developed after qualitative research involving a selected group of five women who previously received FPC was retrospectively sent to eligible patients (n = 143) who had received FPC (1999 - July 2013) and to whom at least one FP option was offered. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients had received FPC at a university hospital in the Netherlands, in a setting where financial factors do not play a role in FP. They were aged ≥16 years and were scheduled for gonadotoxic treatment. The relationship between patients' baseline characteristics, their attributed importance to 28 relevant importance items and their FP choices was investigated. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After five interviews, 28 importance items for FP decision-making were identified and included in our questionnaire. Of these 28 importance items, 24 items could be clustered into seven importance themes. A total of 87 patients (61%) responded to our questionnaire. After performing a multivariable logistic regression analysis, proceeding with FP was related to higher attributed importance during FP decision-making to the theme 'Wish to conceive (in the future)' (odds ratio (OR) 10.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5-34.4) and the item 'Having a stable partner relationship' (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-4.1), while higher attributed importance to the theme 'Expected burden of FP' during FP decision-making (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.3) more often resulted in refraining from treatment. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Besides possible recall and selection bias, the fact that this study was performed in Dutch patients aged ≥16 years counselled in a single centre, where finance was not an additional consideration, possibly limits the generalizability of our results to a broader European population of cancer patients. Furthermore, we are not able to draw conclusions about the causality of the associations observed in our study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The wish to conceive and the expected burden of FP treatment should be discussed carefully with patients during FP decision-making, either by the referring healthcare provider or by reproductive medicine specialist. Prospective research is needed to explore the causality of the associations found in this study. Furthermore, in order to deliver high quality patient-centred care, the development of tools to explore patients' wish to conceive (for example in different age categories) and tools to provide clear information about the burden of FP treatments (using the preferred information channels suggested by patients) is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences (research school affiliated to the Radboud university medical center). The authors have declared no conflicts of interest with respect to this work.

Hospital costs during the first 5 years of life for multiples compared with singletons born after IVF or ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: Do in vitro fertilization (IVF) multiples generate higher hospital costs than IVF singletons, from birth up to age 5? SUMMARY ANSWER: Hospital costs from birth up to age 5 were significantly higher among IVF/ICSI multiple children compared with IVF/ICSI singletons; however, when excluding the costs incurred during the birth admission period, hospital costs of multiples and singletons were comparable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Concern has risen over the long-term outcome of children born after IVF. The increased incidence of multiple births in IVF as a result of double-embryo transfer predisposes children to a poorer neonatal outcome such as preterm birth and low birthweight. As a consequence, IVF multiples require more medical care. Costs and consequences of poorer neonatal outcomes in multiples may also exist later in life. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: All 5497 children born from IVF in 2003-2005, whose parents received IVF or ICSI treatment in one of five participating Dutch IVF centers, served as a basis for a retrospective cohort study. Based on gestational age, birthweight, Apgar and congenital malformation, children were assigned to one of three risk strata (low-, moderate- or high-risk). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: To enhance the efficiency of the data collection, 816 multiples and 584 singletons were selected for 5-year follow-up based on stratified (risk) sampling. Parental informed consent was received of 322 multiples and 293 singletons. Individual-level hospital resource use data (hospitalization, outpatient visits and medical procedures) were retrieved from hospital information systems and patient charts for 302 multiples and 278 singletons. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The risk of hospitalization (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.3-7.0), outpatient visits (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8-3.6) and medical procedures (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.2) was higher for multiples compared with singletons. The average hospital costs amounted to €10 018 and €2093 during the birth admission period (P < 0.001), €1131 and €696 after the birth admission period to the first birthday (not significant (n.s.)) and €1084 and €938 from the second to the fifth life year (n.s.) for multiples and singletons, respectively. Hospital costs from birth up to age 5 were 3.3-fold higher for multiples compared with singletons (P < 0.001). Among multiples and singletons, respectively, 90.8 and 76.2% of the total hospital costs were caused by hospital admission days and 8.9 and 25.2% of the total hospital costs during the first 5 years of life occurred after the first year of life. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Resource use and costs outside the hospital were not included in the analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study confirms the increased use of healthcare resources by IVF/ICSI multiples compared with IVF/ICSI singletons. Single-embryo transfer may result in substantial savings, particularly in the birth admission period. These savings need to be compared with the extra costs of additional embryo transfers needed to achieve a successful pregnancy. Besides costs, health outcomes of children born after single-embryo transfer should be compared with those born after double-embryo transfer. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by a research grant (grant number 80-82310-98-09094) from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). There are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

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

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

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

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

Overtreatment in couples with unexplained infertility.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the percentage of overtreatment, i.e. fertility treatment started too early, in couples with unexplained infertility who were eligible for tailored expectant management? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overtreatment occurred in 36% of couples with unexplained infertility who were eligible for an expectant management of at least 6 months. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Prognostic models in reproductive medicine can help to identify infertile couples that would benefit from fertility treatment. In couples with unexplained infertility with a good chance of natural conception within 1 year, based on the Hunault prediction model, an expectant management of 6-12 months, as recommended in international fertility guidelines, prevents unnecessary treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study in 25 participating clinics, with follow-up of all couples who were seen for infertility in 2011-2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In all, 9818 couples were seen for infertility in the participating clinics. Couples were eligible to participate if they were diagnosed with unexplained infertility and had a good prognosis of natural conception (>30%) within 1 year based on the Hunault prediction model. Data to assess overtreatment were collected from medical records. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to investigate associations of overtreatment with patient and clinic characteristics. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Five hundred and forty-four couples eligible for expectant management were included in this study. Among these, overtreatment, i.e. starting medically assisted reproduction within 6 months, occurred in 36%. The underlying quality indicators showed that in 34% no prognosis was calculated and that in 42% expectant management was not recommended. Finally, 16% of the couples for whom a correct recommendation of expectant management for at least 6 months was made, started treatment within 6 months anyway. Overtreatment was associated with childlessness, higher female age and a longer duration of infertility. No associations between overtreatment and clinic characteristics were found. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The response rate was low compared with other fertility studies. Evaluation of possible selection bias showed that responders had a higher socio-economic status than non-responders. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings show that developing and publishing guideline recommendations on tailored expectant management (TEM) is not enough and that overtreatment still occurs frequently. Future research should focus on tailored efforts to implement guideline recommendations on TEM. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). ZonMW had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.trialregister.nl NTR3405.

Referral for fertility preservation counselling in female cancer patients.

STUDY QUESTION: What changes can be detected in fertility preservation (FP) counselling (FPC) over time and what are the determinants associated with the referral of newly diagnosed female cancer patients, aged 0-39 years, to a specialist in reproductive medicine for FPC? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although the absolute number of patients receiving FPC increased over time, only 9.8% of all potential patients (aged 0-39 years) were referred in 2011 and referral disparities were found with respect to patients' age, cancer diagnosis and healthcare provider-related factors. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Referral rates for FPC prior to the start of gonadotoxic cancer treatment are low. Determinants associated with low referral and referral disparities have been identified in previous studies, although there are only scarce data on referral practices and determinants for FPC referral in settings with reimbursement of FP(C). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a retrospective observational and questionnaire study in a Dutch university hospital. Data on all female cancer patients counselled for FP in this centre (2001-2013), as well as all newly diagnosed female cancer patients aged 0-39 years in the region (2009-2011) were collected. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Data were retrieved from medical records (FPC patients), cancer incidences reported by the Dutch Cancer Registry (to calculate referral percentages) and referring professionals (to identify reasons for the current referral behaviour). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 2011, a total of 9.8% of the patients were referred for FPC. Patients aged 20-29 years or diagnosed with breast cancer or lymphoma were referred more frequently compared with patients under the age of 20 years or patients diagnosed with other malignancies. The absolute numbers of patients receiving FPC increased over time. Healthcare provider-related determinants for low referral were not starting a discussion about fertility-related issues, not knowing where to refer a patient for FPC and not collaborating with patients' associations. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Actual referral rates may slightly differ from our estimation as there may have been patients who did not wish to receive FPC. Sporadically, patients might have been directly referred to other regions or may have received ovarian transposition without FPC. By excluding skin cancer patients, we will have underestimated the group of women who are eligible for FPC as this group also includes melanoma patients who might have received gonadotoxic therapy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The low referral rates and referral disparities reported in the current study indicate that there are opportunities to improve referral practices. Future research should focus on the implementation and evaluation of interventions to improve referral practices, such as information materials for patients at oncology departments, discussion prompts or methods to increase the awareness of physicians and patients of FP techniques and guidelines. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by the Radboud university medical center and the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest with respect to this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Deciding about fertility preservation after specialist counselling.

STUDY QUESTION: How do female patients experience fertility preservation (FP) consultation (FPC) with a specialist in reproductive medicine and subsequent decision-making on FP? SUMMARY ANSWER: Most patients had positive experiences with FPC, but negative experiences were found to be associated with decisional conflict and decision regret. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: When confronted with a need for gonadotoxic treatment, girls and young women will have to make an irreversible decision with regard to FP. Patients may experience decisional conflict and develop regret about their decision during follow-up. Patients' opportunities to ask questions during FPC and their knowledge about FP have been inversely related to decisional conflict. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A questionnaire on experiences with FPC, designed after qualitative research, was retrospectively distributed to 108 patients to whom FP was offered after FPC between July 2008 and July 2013. Aiming to minimize recall bias, we defined a subgroup of patients counselled since 2011 who had not yet tried to conceive after FPC. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients were aged ≥16 years and had either cancer or a benign disease that required gonadotoxic therapy. They received FPC in a single university hospital in the Netherlands. Apart from patients' experiences, patients' characteristics, decisional conflict and decision regret were assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 64 patients (59.3%) responded to the questionnaire. Patients generally had positive experiences with FPC, but indicated room for improvement. Negative experiences were associated with decisional conflict regarding the FP decision (not enough time for counselling: P < 0.0001; not having the opportunity to ask all questions during FPC: P < 0.0001; not feeling supported by the counsellor during decision-making: P = 0.0003; not all applicable options were discussed: P = 0.0001; benefits and disadvantages of FP options were not clearly explained: P = 0.0005). Decisional conflict was correlated to decision regret (P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of patients counselled after 2011 who had not tried to conceive (n = 33), similar results as for the total study population were found for the association of patient experiences with decisional conflict. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Given our retrospective design, we were not informed about the causality of the associations observed. We studied Dutch patients who were counselled in a single centre and were at least 16 years old when filling in the questionnaire. This may limit the generalizability of our data to other settings and populations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: More attention should be paid to improving FPC care. Interventions aiming at improving patients' comprehension of the topic of FP and their feelings of being supported in decision-making are advisable. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by the Radboud Institute for Health and an unconditional grant from Merck Serono. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest with respect to this work.

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

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