The effect of a multifaceted empowerment strategy on decision making about the number of embryos transferred in in vitro fertilisation: randomised controlled trial

Arno van Peperstraten, Willianne Nelen, Richard Grol, Gerhard Zielhuis, Eddy Adang, Peep Stalmeier, Rosella Hermens, Jan Kremer, Arno van Peperstraten, Willianne Nelen, Richard Grol, Gerhard Zielhuis, Eddy Adang, Peep Stalmeier, Rosella Hermens, Jan Kremer

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effects of a multifaceted empowerment strategy on the actual use of single embryo transfer after in vitro fertilisation.

Design: Randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Five in vitro fertilisation clinics in the Netherlands.

Participants: 308 couples (women aged <40) on the waiting list for a first in vitro fertilisation cycle.

Interventions: The multifaceted strategy aimed to empower couples in deciding how many embryos should be transferred. The strategy consisted of a decision aid, support of a nurse specialising in in vitro fertilisation, and the offer of reimbursement by way of an extra treatment cycle. The control group received standard care for in vitro fertilisation.

Main outcome measures: Use of single embryo transfer in the first and second treatment cycles as well as decision making variables and costs of the empowerment strategy.

Results: After the first treatment cycle, single embryo transfer was used by 43% (65/152) of couples in the intervention group and 32% (50/156) in the control group (difference 11%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 22%; P=0.05). After the second treatment cycle, single embryo transfer was used by 26% (14/154) of couples in the intervention group compared with 16% (8/51) in the control group (difference 10%, -6% to 26%; P=0.20). Compared with couples receiving standard care, those receiving the empowerment strategy had significantly higher empowerment and knowledge levels but no differences in anxiety levels. Mean total savings per couple in the intervention group were calculated to be €169.75 (£146.77; $219.12).

Conclusions: A multifaceted empowerment strategy encouraged use of single embryo transfer, increased patients' knowledge, reduced costs, and had no effect on levels of anxiety or depression. This strategy could therefore be an important tool to reduce the twin pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilisation. This trial did not, however, demonstrate the anticipated 25% difference in use of single embryo transfer of the power calculation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00315029.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the unified competing interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare (1) no financial support for the submitted work from anyone other than their employer; (2) no financial relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; (3) no spouses, partners, or children with relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; and (4) no non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787941/bin/vana653717.f1_default.jpg
Trial profile

References

    1. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America and Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academies Press, 2001.
    1. Forlani G, Zannoni C, Tarrini G, Melchionda N, Marchesini G. An empowerment-based educational program improves psychological well-being and health-related quality of life in type 1 diabetes. J Endocrinol Invest 2006;29:405-12.
    1. Maly RC, Stein JA, Umezawa Y, Leake B, Anglin MD. Racial/ethnic differences in breast cancer outcomes among older patients: effects of physician communication and patient empowerment. Health Psychol 2008;27:728-36.
    1. Ayme S, Kole A, Groft S. Empowerment of patients: lessons from the rare diseases community. Lancet 2008;371:2048-51.
    1. Taylor I. Some patients are happy for doctors to make decisions. BMJ 2000;320:58.
    1. Tomes N. Patient empowerment and the dilemmas of late-modern medicalisation. Lancet 2007;369:698-700.
    1. Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 2004;328:261.
    1. Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Ozturk O, Serour G, Templeton A. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;2:CD003416.
    1. Pinborg A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update 2005;11:575-93.
    1. Lukassen HG, Braat DD, Wetzels AM, Zielhuis GA, Adang EM, Scheenjes E, et al. Two cycles with single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005;20:702-8.
    1. Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2392-402.
    1. Van Montfoort AP, Fiddelers AA, Janssen JM, Derhaag JG, Dirksen CD, Dunselman GA, et al. In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2006;21:338-43.
    1. Prevention of twin pregnancies after IVF/ICSI by single embryo transfer. ESHRE campus course report. Hum Reprod 2001;16:790-800.
    1. Andersen AN, Goossens V, Ferraretti AP, Bhattacharya S, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2008;23:756-71.
    1. Van Peperstraten AM, Hermens RP, Nelen WL, Stalmeier PF, Scheffer GJ, Grol RP, et al. Perceived barriers to elective single embryo transfer among IVF professionals: a national survey. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2718-23.
    1. Van Peperstraten AM, Nelen WL, Hermens RP, Jansen L, Scheenjes E, Braat DD, et al. Why don’t we perform elective single embryo transfer? A qualitative study among IVF patients and professionals. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2036-42.
    1. Jain T, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD. Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2002;347:661-6.
    1. Kremer JA, Bots RS, Cohlen B, Crooij M, Van Dop PA, Jansen CA, et al. [Ten years of results of in-vitro fertilisation in the Netherlands 1996-2005.] Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2008;152:146-52.
    1. Van Peperstraten AM, Kreuwel IA, Hermens RP, Nelen WL, Van Dop PA, Grol RP, et al. Determinants of the choice for single or double embryo transfer in twin prone couples. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:226-31.
    1. Van Peperstraten AM, Hermens RP, Nelen WL, Stalmeier PF, Wetzels AM, Maas PH, et al. Deciding how many embryos to transfer after in vitro fertilisation: development and pilot test of a decision aid. Patient Educ Couns 2010;78:124-9.
    1. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006;333:417.
    1. Luszczynska A, Scholz U, Schwarzer R. The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J Psychol 2005;139:439-57.
    1. Stalmeier PF, Roosmalen MS, Verhoef LC, Hoekstra-Weebers JE, Oosterwijk JC, Moog U, et al. The decision evaluation scales. Patient Educ Couns 2005;57:286-93.
    1. Van der Bij AK, de Weerd S, Cikot RJ, Steegers EA, Braspenning JC. Validation of the Dutch short form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: considerations for usage in screening outcomes. Community Genet 2003;6:84-7.
    1. Steer RA, Cavalieri TA, Leonard DM, Beck AT. Use of the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care to screen for major depression disorders. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1999;21:106-11.
    1. Oostenbrink JB, Bouwmans CAM, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek. 2008. .
    1. Lukassen HG, Schonbeck Y, Adang EM, Braat DD, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA. Cost analysis of singleton versus twin pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1240-6.
    1. Beck AT, Guth D, Steer RA, Ball R. Screening for major depression disorders in medical inpatients with the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care. Behav Res Ther 1997;35:785-91.
    1. Harrington J, Noble LM, Newman SP. Improving patients’ communication with doctors: a systematic review of intervention studies. Patient Educ Couns 2004;52:7-16.
    1. O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D, Holmes-Rovner M, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;3:CD001431.
    1. Gleicher N, Barad D. The relative myth of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2006;21:1337-44.
    1. Van Wely M, Twisk M, Mol BW, van der Veen F. Is twin pregnancy necessarily an adverse outcome of assisted reproductive technologies? Hum Reprod 2006;21:2736-8.
    1. Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Brosens I, Valkenburg M, Norre J, et al. Belgian legislation and the effect of elective single embryo transfer on IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10:436-41.
    1. De Neubourg D, Gerris J, Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, Vercruyssen M. Impact of a restriction in the number of embryos transferred on the multiple pregnancy rate. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;124:212-5.
    1. Karlstrom PO, Bergh C. Reducing the number of embryos transferred in Sweden—impact on delivery and multiple birth rates. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2202-7.
    1. Saldeen P, Sundstrom P. Would legislation imposing single embryo transfer be a feasible way to reduce the rate of multiple pregnancies after IVF treatment? Hum Reprod 2005;20:4-8.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel