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。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Human Fertility Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-16 DOI:10.1080/14647273.2023.2197628
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,&nbsp;Jack Wilkinson,&nbsp;Sarah Lensen,&nbsp;Emily Jackson,&nbsp;Joyce Harper,&nbsp;Katy Lindemann,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Jack Wilkinson,&nbsp;Sarah Lensen,&nbsp;Emily Jackson,&nbsp;Joyce Harper,&nbsp;Katy Lindemann,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于是什么推动了对附加组件的需求,存在着相互矛盾的说法。我们对试管婴儿患者进行了一项在线调查,以确定患者是否认为试管婴儿附加组件的使用是由患者或从业者驱动的。过去五年在英国接受试管婴儿的人是通过社交媒体招募的。调查问题集中在临床医生的提议和患者的请求上,包括谁首先建议在试管婴儿咨询中使用附加组件,患者第一次听说这些附加组件是在哪里,以及他们信任哪些信息来源。在总共261份答复中,有224份符合纳入标准。总体而言,67%的受访者使用过一种或多种试管婴儿附加功能,最常见的是:延时成像(27%)、胚胎胶(27%)和子宫内膜刮伤(26%)。总体而言,81%的附加组件是由临床医生提供给参与者的(相比之下,19%是他们自己要求的)。一半(54%)的人表示在咨询期间收到了附加组件,而24%的人开始讨论附加组件。据报道,接受(90%)、请求(47%)和使用(74%)附加功能的私人患者比例高于接受NHS资助的患者(分别为74%、29%和52%)。这项研究的主要局限性是样本量小,通过方便样本进行招募,以及自我报告的数据采集存在回忆偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Fertility
Human Fertility OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
50
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.
期刊最新文献
Do very young oocyte donors negatively impact live birth rates in their recipients? The infected blood inquiry report-lessons for gamete donation. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancy from donated frozen versus fresh oocytes. Mpox in assisted conception: should we be worried about this monkey wrench? Prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): British Fertility Society policy and practice guideline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1