Decision regret among couples experiencing infertility: a mixed methods longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions for how to resolve infertility are complex and may lead to regret. We examined whether couples and individuals who sought a consultation from a reproductive specialist for infertility later expressed decisional regret about their family-building choices and whether regret was associated with parental role, family-building paths, or outcomes. METHODS: This longitudinal mixed methods study included women and their partners who completed a questionnaire prior to their initial consultation with a reproductive specialist and 6 years later. The six-year questionnaire included the Ottawa Decision Regret Scale referencing "the decisions you made about how to add a child to your family." A score of 25+ indicates moderate-to-severe regret. Additional items invited reflections on family-building decisions, treatments, and costs. A systematic content analysis assessed qualitative themes. RESULTS: Forty-five couples and 34 individuals participated in the six-year questionnaire (76% retention rate), Half (n = 61) of participants expressed no regret, which was similar by role (median 0 for women and supporting partners, F = .08; p = .77). One in 5 women and 1 in 7 partners expressed moderate-to-severe regret. Women who did not pursue any treatment had significantly higher regret (median 15; F = 5.6, p < 0.01) compared to those who pursued IVF (median 0) or other treatments (median 0). Women who did not add a child to their family had significantly higher regret (median 35; F = 10.1, p < 0.001) than those who added a child through treatment (median 0), through fostering/adoption (median 0), or naturally (median 5). Among partners, regret scores were not associated with family-building paths or outcomes. More than one-quarter of participants wished they had spent less money trying to add a child to their family. Qualitative themes included gratitude for parenthood despite the burdensome process of family-building as well as dissatisfaction or regret about the process. Results should be confirmed in other settings to increase generalizability. CONCLUSION: This longitudinal study provides new insight into the burden of infertility. For women seeking parenthood, any of the multiple paths to parenthood may prevent future decision regret. Greater psychosocial, financial, and decision support is needed to help patients and their partners navigate family-building with minimal regret.

When people experience infertility, there are many decisions that can be challenging, such as whether to seek fertility treatments, to pursue fostering/adoption, and how to manage costs. With each decision, there is an opportunity for regret. The goal of this study was to look at whether people who were experiencing infertility and made an appointment with a doctor who specializes in infertility felt any regret about their decisions 6 years later. We also looked at whether different roles (that is, women seeking pregnancy or their supporting partners), different family-building paths (that is, medical treatments or not), or different outcomes (that is, adding a child to their family or not) were associated with different levels of regret. Results showed that half of the 120 people in the study did not have any regret 6 years after meeting with a specialty doctor. However, some patients did have regret, including 20% of women and 14% of partners who expressed moderate-to-severe regret. Women who did not add a child to their family in the six years during the study reported higher regret compared to women who did add a child to their family. There were no such differences among partners. About 25% of participants wished they had tried more, fewer, or different treatments. More than 25% wished they spent less money to try to add a child to their family. For people who want to add a child to their family, there are multiple ways to become a parent, any of which may be linked to lower decision regret. Decision regret is experienced differently between women seeking to add a child to their family and their partners. Would-be parents need more emotional, financial, and decision making support to help them navigate family-building with minimal regret.

A conceptual framework for patient-centered fertility treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care is a pillar of quality health care and is important to patients experiencing infertility. In this study we used empirical, in-depth data on couples' experiences of infertility treatment decision making to inform and revise a conceptual framework for patient-centered fertility treatment that was developed based on health care professionals' conceptualizations of fertility treatment, covering effectiveness, burden, safety, and costs. METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal mixed methods study, we collected data from both members (separately) of 37 couples who scheduled an initial consult with a reproductive specialist. Data collection occurred 1 week before the initial consultation, 1 week after the initial consultation, and then roughly 2, 4, 8, and 12 months later. Data collection included semi-structured qualitative interviews, self-reported questionnaires, and medical record review. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed in NVivo. A single coder analyzed all transcripts, with > 25% of transcripts coded by a second coder to ensure quality control and consistency. RESULTS: Content analysis of the interview transcripts revealed 6 treatment dimensions: effectiveness, physical and emotional burden, time, cost, potential risks, and genetic parentage. Thus, the revised framework for patient-centered fertility treatment retains much from the original framework, with modification to one dimension (from safety to potential risks) and the addition of two dimensions (time and genetic parentage). For patients and their partners making fertility treatment decisions, tradeoffs are explicitly considered across dimensions as opposed to each dimension being considered on its own. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered fertility treatment should account for the dimensions of treatment that patients and their partners weigh when making decisions about how to add a child to their family. Based on the lived experiences of couples seeking specialist medical care for infertility, this revised conceptual framework can be used to inform patient-centered treatment and research on infertility and to develop decision support tools for patients and providers.

Priorities for family building among patients and partners seeking treatment for infertility.

BACKGROUND: Infertility treatment decisions require people to balance multiple priorities. Within couples, partners must also negotiate priorities with one another. In this study, we assessed the family-building priorities of couples prior to their first consultations with a reproductive specialist. METHODS: Participants were couples who had upcoming first consultations with a reproductive specialist (N = 59 couples (59 women; 59 men)). Prior to the consultation, couples separately completed the Family-Building Priorities Tool, which tasked them with ranking from least to most important 10 factors associated with family building. We describe the highest (top three) and lowest (bottom three) priorities, the alignment of priorities within couples, and test for differences in prioritization between men and women within couples (Wilcoxon signed rank test). RESULTS: Maintaining a close and satisfying relationship with one's partner was ranked as a high priority by majorities of men and women, and in 25% of couples, both partners ranked this factor as their most important priority for family building. Majorities of men and women also ranked building a family in a way that does not make infertility obvious to others as a low priority, and in 27% of couples, both partners ranked this factor as the least important priority for family building. There were also differences within couples that involved either men or women ranking a particular goal more highly than their partners. More women ranked two factors higher than did their partners: 1) that I become a parent one way or another (p = 0.015) and 2) that I have a child in the next year or two (p < 0.001), whereas more men ranked 4 factors higher than their partners: 1) that our child has [woman's] genes (p = 0.025), 2) that our child has [man's] genes (p < 0.001), 3) that I maintain a close relationship with my partner (p = 0.034), and 4) that I avoid side effects from treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians who support patients in assessing available family-building paths should be aware that: (1) patients balance multiple priorities as a part of, or beside, becoming a parent; and (2) patients and their partners may not be aligned in their prioritization of achieving parenthood. For infertility patients who are in relationships, clinicians should encourage the active participation of both partners as well as frank discussions about each partner's priorities for building their family.

Stimulation of the young poor responder: comparison of the luteal estradiol/gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist priming protocol versus oral contraceptive microdose leuprolide.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcomes in young poor responders treated with a luteal estradiol/gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (E(2)/ANT) protocol versus an oral contraceptive pill microdose leuprolide protocol (OCP-MDL). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Academic practice. PATIENT(S): Poor responders: 186 women, aged <35 years undergoing IVF with either E(2)/ANT or OCP-MDL protocols. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancies, oocytes retrieved, cancellation rate. RESULT(S): Patients in the E(2)/ANT group had a greater gonadotropin requirement (71.9 ± 22.2 vs. 57.6 ± 25.7) and lower E(2) level (1,178.6 ± 668 vs. 1,627 ± 889), yet achieved similar numbers of oocytes retrieved and fertilized, and a greater number of embryos transferred (2.3 ± 0.9 vs. 2.0 ± 1.1) with a better mean grade (2.14 ± .06 vs. 2.7 ± 1.8) compared with the OCP/MDL group. The E2/ANT group exhibited a trend toward improved implantation rates (30.5% vs. 21.1%) and ongoing pregnancy rates per started cycle: 44 out of 117 (37%) versus 17 out of 69 (25%). CONCLUSION(S): Poor responders aged <35 years may be treated with the aggressive E(2)/ANT protocol to improve cycle outcomes. Both protocols remain viable options for this group. Adequately powered, randomized clinical comparison appears justified.

Infertility and abnormal cervical mucus in two sisters who are compound heterozygotes for the cystic fibrosis (CF) DeltaF508 and R117H/7T mutations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe two cases of infertile sisters who are compound heterozygote carriers of the cystic fibrosis (CF) DeltaF508 and R117H/7T mutations and who were found to have significantly abnormal cervical mucus. DESIGN: Case reports and review of literature. SETTING: Infertility practice based in an academic medical center. PATIENT(S): Two sisters (ages 34 and 42), compound heterozygote carriers of CF mutations, who presented with involuntary infertility. INTERVENTION(S): The partners of both patients tested negative for CF. The evaluation of both sisters did not indicate other causes of infertility aside from advanced maternal age in the 42-year-old patient. Both sisters underwent natural-cycle intrauterine insemination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Pregnancy conception. RESULT(S): The 34-year-old patient has subsequently conceived twice through natural-cycle inseminations. CONCLUSION(S): This is the first reported case of infertility due to a cervical mucus factor in a patient who is a compound heterozygote of the DeltaF508 and R117H/7T mutations. This case is important not only because of the distinct phenotypic abnormality seen with specific CF mutations but also because of the associated genotype.

Serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and IGF-binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) in IVF patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: correlations with outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and IGF-binding protein 3 (IGFBP-3) levels during stimulation in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and control populations as factors predictive of IVF outcome. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Academic medical center-based IVF practice. PATIENT(S): Forty-three PCOS and 33 male-factor control patients undergoing IVF from 2002 to 2004. INTERVENTION(S): Treatment with a dual suppression protocol incorporating oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and GnRH agonist suppression followed by low-dose gonadotropin therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The PCOS and control patients' serum IGF-I and IGFBP-3 levels were compared and correlated with IVF outcome. RESULT(S): PCOS and control patients were comparable in terms of demographics and IVF outcome. In both, mean serum IGF-I levels increased during stimulation. PCOS patients whose IGF-I levels decreased from day 3 to day of hCG had a significantly higher mean number of immature oocytes retrieved (4.8 +/- 1.1 vs. 2.4 +/- 0.4; P=.02). IGFBP-3 levels increased during stimulation in PCOS patients but tended to decrease in control patients. In PCOS patients, an increase in IGFBP-3 levels during stimulation was associated with a greater likelihood of becoming pregnant (P=.03) and of ongoing pregnancy (P=.02). CONCLUSION(S): The bioavailability of IGF-I appears to play a key role in oocyte maturation in PCOS patients. Alterations in IGFBP-3 concentration during stimulation may be a critical mechanism in modulating IGF-I activity.