Stevan Cirkovic, Jack Wilkinson, Sarah Lensen, Emily Jackson, Joyce Harper, Katy Lindemann, Joan Costa-Font
{"title":"试管婴儿附加治疗的使用是由患者还是诊所推动的?英国患者调查结果。","authors":"Stevan Cirkovic, Jack Wilkinson, Sarah Lensen, Emily Jackson, Joyce Harper, Katy Lindemann, Joan Costa-Font","doi":"10.1080/14647273.2023.2197628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13006,"journal":{"name":"Human Fertility","volume":"26 2","pages":"365-372"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the use of IVF add-on treatments driven by patients or clinics? Findings from a UK patient survey.\",\"authors\":\"Stevan Cirkovic, Jack Wilkinson, Sarah Lensen, Emily Jackson, Joyce Harper, Katy Lindemann, Joan Costa-Font\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14647273.2023.2197628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Fertility\",\"volume\":\"26 2\",\"pages\":\"365-372\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Fertility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2023.2197628\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Fertility","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2023.2197628","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
期刊介绍:
Human Fertility is a leading international, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice in the areas of human fertility and infertility. Topics included span the range from molecular medicine to healthcare delivery, and contributions are welcomed from professionals and academics from the spectrum of disciplines concerned with human fertility. It is published on behalf of the British Fertility Society.
The journal also provides a forum for the publication of peer-reviewed articles arising out of the activities of the Association of Biomedical Andrologists, the Association of Clinical Embryologists, the Association of Irish Clinical Embryologists, the British Andrology Society, the British Infertility Counselling Association, the Irish Fertility Society and the Royal College of Nursing Fertility Nurses Group.
All submissions are welcome. Articles considered include original papers, reviews, policy statements, commentaries, debates, correspondence, and reports of sessions at meetings. The journal also publishes refereed abstracts from the meetings of the constituent organizations.