Feasibility randomized controlled trial of a self-guided online intervention to promote psychosocial adjustment to unmet parenthood goals

B Rowbottom, A Galhardo, E Donovan, S Gameiro, B Rowbottom, A Galhardo, E Donovan, S Gameiro

Abstract

Study question: Is it feasible to implement and evaluate an online self-guided psychosocial intervention for people with an unmet parenthood goal (UPG), aimed to improve well-being, in an online randomized controlled trial (RCT)?

Summary answer: The evaluation of an online bilingual self-guided psychosocial intervention for people with a UPG is feasible, reflected by high demand, good acceptability, good adaptation and promise of efficacy, but minor adjustments to the intervention and study design of the RCT should be made to enhance practicality.

What is known already: Self-identifying as having a UPG, defined as being unable to have children or as many as desired, is associated with impaired well-being and mental health. Practice guidelines and regulatory bodies have highlighted the need to address the lack of evidence-based support for this population. It is unknown if MyJourney (www.myjourney.pt), the first online self-guided intervention for people with UPGs, can be implemented and evaluated in an RCT.

Study design, size, duration: To evaluate the feasibility of MyJourney, we conducted a registered, two-arm, parallel group, non-blinded feasibility RCT, with a 1:1 computer-generated randomized allocation and embedded qualitative process evaluation. Participants were included between November 2020 and March 2021. Assessments were made before randomization (T1), 10 weeks (T2) and 6 months after (T3, intervention group only). Participants allocated to the intervention group received an email to access MyJourney immediately after randomization. Participants in the waitlist control group were given access to MyJourney after completing the 10-week assessment (T2).

Participants/materials, setting, methods: Participants were recruited via social media advertising of MyJourney and its feasibility study. People who self-identified as having a UPG could click on a link to participate, and of these 235 were randomized. Outcome measures related to demand, acceptability, implementation, practicality, adaptation and limited efficacy were assessed via online surveys. The primary outcome in limited efficacy testing was hedonic well-being, measured with the World Health Organisation Wellbeing Index (WHO-5).

Main results and the role of chance: Participation and retention rates were 58.3%, 31.7% (T2) and 45.2% (T3, intervention group only), respectively. Of participants invited to register with MyJourney, 91 (76.5%) set up an account, 51 (47.2%) completed the first Step of MyJourney, 12 (11.1%) completed six Steps (sufficient dose) and 6 (5.6%) completed all Steps within the 10-week recommended period. Acceptability ranged from 2.79 (successful at supporting) to 4.42 (easy to understand) on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely acceptable) scale. Average time to complete sufficient dose was 15.6 h (SD = 18.15) and to complete all Steps was 12.4 h (SD = 18.15), with no differences found for participants using MyJourney in Portuguese and English. Modified intention-to-treat analysis showed a moderate increase in well-being from T1 to T2 in the intervention group (ηp2 = 0.156, mean difference (MD) = 9.300 (2.285, 16.315)) and no changes in the control group (ηp2 = 0.000, MD = 0.047 (-3.265, 3.358)). Participants in the process evaluation reported MyJourney was needed and answered their needs for support (reflecting high demand and acceptability), the recommended period to engage with MyJourney was short, and their engagement was influenced by multiple factors, including personal (e.g. lack of time) and MyJourney related (e.g. reminders).

Limitations, reasons for caution: Participants were mostly white, well-educated, employed, childless women. Non-blinded allocation, use of self-reported questionnaire assessments and high attrition in the intervention group could have triggered bias favourable to positive evaluations of MyJourney and resulted in low power to detect T2 to T3 changes in limited efficacy outcomes.

Wider implications of the findings: MyJourney can proceed to efficacy testing, but future work should eliminate barriers for engagement and explore strategies to maximize adherence. Entities wanting to support people with UPGs now have a freely accessible and promising resource that can be further tested and evaluated in different settings.

Study funding/competing interest(s): MyJourney's development was funded by the charity Portuguese Fertility Association, Cardiff University and University of Coimbra (CINEICC). Dr S.G. reports consultancy fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, speaker fees from Access Fertility, SONA-Pharm LLC, Meridiano Congress International and Gedeon Richter and grants from Merck Serono Ltd. Bethan Rowbottom holds a PhD scholarship funded by the School of Psychology, Cardiff University. The other authors have no conflicts of interest.

Trial registration number: Clinical Trials.gov NCT04850482.

Keywords: feasibility; mental health; online psychosocial support; unmet parenthood goals; well-being.

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Participant flowchart.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Acceptability ratings of MyJourney.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Means and SEM for each group on hedonic well-being (WHO-5) across assessment times. The effect size (partial eta-squared, ηp2, small = 0.01, medium = 0.06 and large effect size = 0.14) of changes across assessment times for each group is also reported, along with the mean difference (MD) estimate and its [95% CI].

References

    1. Avery KNL, Williamson PR, Gamble C, Francischetto EOC, Metcalfe C, Davidson P, Williams H, Blazeby JM.. Informing efficient randomised controlled trials: exploration of challenges in developing progression criteria for internal pilot studies. BMJ Open 2017;7:e013537.
    1. Barrera M, Castro FG.. A heuristic framework for the cultural adaptation of interventions. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 2006;13:311–316.
    1. Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, Bakken S, Kaplan CP, Squiers L, Favrizio C. et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med 2009;36:452–457.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V.. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101.
    1. Cann A, Calhoun LG, Tedeschi RG, Taku K, Vishnevsky T, Triplett KN, Danhauer SC.. A short form of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. Anxiety Stress Coping 2010;23:127–137.
    1. Christensen H, Griffiths KM, Farrer L.. Adherence in internet interventions for anxiety and depression: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2009;11:e13.
    1. Clifton J, Parent J, Worrall G, Seehuus M, Evans M, Forehand R, Domar A.. An Internet-based mind/body intervention to mitigate distress in women experiencing infertility: a randomized pilot trial. Fertil Steril 2016;106:e62.
    1. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992;112:155–159.
    1. Cousineau TM, Green TC, Corsini E, Seibring A, Showstack MT, Applegarth L, Davidson M, Perloe M.. Online psychoeducational support for infertile women: A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2008;23:554–566.
    1. Daniluk JC. Reconstructing their lives: a longitudinal, qualitative analyses of the transition to biological childlessness for infertile couples. J Counsel Dev 2001;79:439–449.
    1. Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, Thabane L, Hopewell S, Coleman CL, Bond CM.. Defining feasibility and pilot studies in preparation of randomised controlled trials: development of a conceptual framework. PLoS One 2016;11:e0150205.
    1. Eurofound. European Quality of Life Survey 2016: Quality of life, quality of public services, and quality of society. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017.
    1. Eysenbach G. The law of attrition. J Med Internet Res 2005;7:e11.
    1. Frederiksen Y, Farver-Vestergaard I, Skovgård NG, Ingerslev HJ, Zachariae R.. Efficacy of psychosocial interventions for psychological and pregnancy outcomes in infertile women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2015;5:e006592.
    1. Gameiro S. How do people adjust to not realizing their parenthood goals? A test of the Three Tasks Model of Adjustment to Unmet Parenthood Goals (3TM) 35th Annual Meeting of the Europeans Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. 2019. Europeans Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, Vienna, Austria, p.i97.
    1. Gameiro S, Boivin J, Dancet E, de Klerk C, Emery M, Lewis-Jones C, Thorn P, Van den Broeck U, Venetis C, Verhaak CM. et al. ESHRE guideline: routine psychosocial care in infertility and medically assisted reproduction-a guide for fertility staff. Hum Reprod 2015;30:2476–2485.
    1. Gameiro S, Finnigan A.. Long-term djustment to unmet parenthood goals following ART: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2017;23:322–337.
    1. Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, Lillis J.. Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behav Res Ther 2006;44:1–25.
    1. HFEA. Code of Practice. 9th edn. London, UK: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 2018.
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (T IDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ2014;348.
    1. Kelly MJ, Dunstan FD, Looyd K, Fone DL.. Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods. BMC Psychiatry 2008;8:1–9.
    1. Kersting A, Dolemeyer R, Steinig J, Walter F, Kroker K, Baust K, Wagner B.. Brief internet-based intervention reduces posttraumatic stress and prolonged grief in parents after the loss of a child during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Psychother Psychosom 2013;82:372–381.
    1. Koert E, Daniluk JC.. When time runs out: reconciling permanent childlessness after delayed childbearing. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2017;35:342–352.
    1. Kraaij V, Garnefski N, Fles H, Brands A, van Tricht S.. Effects of a self-help program on depressed mood for women with an unfulfilled child wish. J Loss Trauma 2016;21:275–285.
    1. Linardon J, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M.. Attrition and adherence in smartphone-delivered interventions for mental health problems: A systematic and meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol 2020;88:1–13.
    1. Mayr S, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Faul F.. A short tutorial of GPower. Tutorials Quant Methods Psychol 2007;3:51–59.
    1. Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O'Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D. et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258.
    1. Neff KD, Germer CK.. A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. J Clin Psychol 2013;69:28–44.
    1. Office for National Statistics. Cohort Fertility. England and Wales: Office for National Statistics, 2012.
    1. Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M.. Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2009;24:28.
    1. Park C. Making sense of the meaning literature: an integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychol Bull 2010;136:257–301.
    1. Peddie VL, van Teijlingen E, Bhattacharya S.. A qualitative study of women's decision-making at the end of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2005;20:1944–1951.
    1. Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Evers KE.. The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM (eds). Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002, 45–66.
    1. Robertson I, Harrison C, Ng KYB, Macklon N, Cheong Y, Boivin J.. Development, implementation and initial feasibility testing of the MediEmo mobile application to provide support during medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2022a;37:1007–1017.
    1. Robertson I, Ogundiran O, Cheong Y.. Digital support tools for fertility patients—a narrative systematic review. Hum Fertil 2022b:1–10.
    1. Rowbottom B. Development and feasibility evaluation of MyJourney: a self-guided online intervention for people with unmet parenthood goals. School Psychol 2022. .
    1. Shreffler KM, Tiemeyer S, Dorius C, Spierling T, Greil AL, McQuillan J.. Infertility and fertility intentions, desires, and outcomes among US women. Dem Res 2016;35:1149–1168.
    1. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, Boyd KA, Craig N, French DP, McIntosh E. et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of the Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2021;374:n2061.
    1. Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P.. The WHO-5 well-being index: a systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom 2015;84:167–176.
    1. Torous J, Nicholas J, Larsen ME, Firth J, Christensen H.. Clinical review of user engagement with mental health smartphone apps: evidence, theory and improvements. Evid Based Ment Health 2018;21:116–119.
    1. van Dongen AJCN, Nelen WL, IntHout J, Kremer J, Verhaak CM.. e-Therapy to reduce emotional distress in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART): a feasibility randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2016;31:1046–1057.
    1. Ware J, Kosinksi M, Gandek B.. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual & Intepretation Guide. Lincoln: Quality Metric Incorporated, 2000.
    1. Wischmann T, Thorn P.. When ART fails: figures, experiences, interventions and a plea for the ‘plan B’. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022;39:195–199.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren