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.

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.

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.