The PRCI study: design of a randomized clinical trial to evaluate a coping intervention for medical waiting periods used by women undergoing a fertility treatment

Henrietta D L Ockhuijsen, Agnes van den Hoogen, Nickolas S Macklon, Jacky Boivin, Henrietta D L Ockhuijsen, Agnes van den Hoogen, Nickolas S Macklon, Jacky Boivin

Abstract

Background: Many medical situations necessitate a stressful period of waiting for potentially threatening test results. The medical waiting period is often associated with negative anticipatory anxiety and rumination about the outcome of treatment. Few evidence-based self-help coping interventions are available to assist individuals manage these periods. Theory and research suggest that positive reappraisal coping strategies may be particularly useful for this type of unpredictable and uncontrollable stressful context. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of a Positive Reappraisal Coping Intervention (PRCI) on psychological well-being of women waiting for the outcome of their fertility treatment cycle.

Methods/design: In a three-armed randomized controlled trial, the effectiveness of the PRCI will be tested. Consecutive patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation in a Dutch university hospital and meeting selection criteria will be invited to participate. Those who agree will be randomized to one of three experimental groups (N=372). The PRCI Intervention group will receive the intervention that comprises an explanatory leaflet and the 10 statements designed to promote positive reappraisal coping, to be read at least once in the morning, once in the evening. To capture the general impact of PRCI on psychological wellbeing patients will complete questionnaires before the waiting period (pre-intervention), on day ten of the 14-day waiting period (intervention) and six weeks after the start of the waiting period (post-intervention). To capture the specific effects of the PRCI during the waiting period, patients will also be asked to monitor daily their emotions and reactions during the 14-day waiting period. The primary outcome is general anxiety, measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Secondary outcomes are positive and negative emotions during the waiting period, depression, quality of life, coping and treatment outcome. During recruitment for the RCT it was decided to add a fourth non-randomized group, a PRCI Control group that received the PRCI and completed the questionnaires but did not complete daily monitoring.

Discussion: Positive reappraisal is one of the few ways of coping that has been shown to be associated with increased wellbeing during unpredictable and uncontrollable situations like medical waiting periods. A simple evidence based self-help intervention could facilitate coping during this common medical situation. This RCT study will evaluate the value of a self-help coping intervention designed for medical waiting periods in women undergoing fertility treatment.

Trial registration: The study is registered at the Clinical Tials.gov (NCT01701011).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart study protocol.
Figure 2
Figure 2
PRCI intervention. © 2008 by Cardiff University. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of authors.

References

    1. Lancastle D, Boivin J. A feasibility study of a brief coping intervention (PRCI) for the waiting period before a pregnancy test during fertility treatment. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(10):2299–2307. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den257.
    1. Boivin J, Lancastle D. Medical waiting periods: imminence, emotions and coping. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 2010;6(1):59–69. doi: 10.2217/whe.09.79.
    1. Folkman S, Lazarus RS. The relationship between coping and emotion: implications for theory and research. Soc Sci Med. 1988;26(3):309–317. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90395-4.
    1. Phelps C, Bennett P, Hood K, Brain K, Murray A. A self-help coping intervention can reduce anxiety and avoidant health behaviours whilst waiting for cancer genetic risk information: results of a phase III randomised trial. Psychooncology. 2012;22(4):837–844.
    1. Tedlie Moskowitz J, Folkman S, Collette L, Vittinghoff E. Coping and mood during aids-related caregiving and bereavement. Ann Behav Med. 1996;18(1):49–57. doi: 10.1007/BF02903939.
    1. Folkman S, Moskowitz JT. Positive affect and the other side of coping. Am Psychol. 2000;55(6):647–654.
    1. ESHRE. The World’s Number of IVF and ICSI Babies Has Now Reached a Calculated Total of 5 million [press release] Istanbul, Turkey: European Society of Human Reproduction and Embyology (1 Jul 2012); .
    1. Merari D, Feldberg D, Elizur A, Goldman J, Modan B. Psychological and hormonal changes in the course of in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1992;9(2):161–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01203757.
    1. Boivin J, Takefman JE. Stress level across stages of in vitro fertilization in subsequently pregnant and nonpregnant women. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(4):802–810.
    1. Eugster A, Vingerhoets AJ. Psychological aspects of in vitro fertilization: a review. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(5):575–589. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00386-4.
    1. Yong P, Martin C, Thong J. A comparison of psychological functioning in women at different stages of in vitro fertilization treatment using the mean affect adjective check list. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17(10):553–556. doi: 10.1023/A:1026429712794.
    1. Verhaak CM, Lintsen AM, Evers AW, Braat DD. Who is at risk of emotional problems and how do you know? Screening of women going for IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(5):1234–1240. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq054.
    1. Boivin J, Scanlan LC, Walker SM. Why are infertile patients not using psychosocial counselling? Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1384–1391. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.5.1384.
    1. Van Dongen AJ, Kremer JA, Van Sluisveld N, Verhaak CM, Nelen WL. Feasibility of screening patients for emotional risk factors before in vitro fertilization in daily clinical practice: a process evaluation. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3493–3501. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des324.
    1. Matthiesen SM, Frederiksen Y, Ingerslev HJ, Zachariae R. Stress, distress and outcome of assisted reproductive technology (ART): a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2763–2776. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der246.
    1. Boivin J, Griffiths E, Venetis CA. Emotional distress in infertile women and failure of assisted reproductive technologies: meta-analysis of prospective psychosocial studies. BMJ. 2011;342:d223. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d223.
    1. Boivin J. A review of psychosocial interventions in infertility. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(12):2325–2341. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00138-2.
    1. Hammerli K, Znoj H, Barth J. The efficacy of psychological interventions for infertile patients: a meta-analysis examining mental health and pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15(3):279–295. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmp002.
    1. de Liz TM, Strauss B. Differential efficacy of group and individual/couple psychotherapy with infertile patients. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(5):1324–1332. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh743.
    1. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer; 2006.
    1. Folkman S. The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping: Oxford. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.
    1. de Klerk C, Hunfeld JA, Duivenvoorden HJ, den Outer MA, Fauser BC, Passchier J, Macklon NS. Effectiveness of a psychosocial counselling intervention for first-time IVF couples: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(5):1333–1338. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh748.
    1. Cohen S, Kessler RC, Gordon LU. Measuring stress: a guide for health and social scientists. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.
    1. Polit DF, Hungler BP. Nursing research: principles and methods. Philadelphia, New York, Baltimor: Lippincott Company; 1999.
    1. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research : generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
    1. Svanberg AS, Boivin J, Hjelmstedt A, Bergh LA, Collins A, Bergh T. The impact of frozen embryos on emotional reactions during in vitro fertilization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80(12):1110–1114. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.801206.x.
    1. Provoost V, Pennings G, De Sutter P, Gerris J, Van de Velde A, Dhont M. Patients’ conceptualization of cryopreserved embryos used in their fertility treatment. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(3):705–713. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep387.
    1. Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers PP, Kempen GI, Speckens AE, Van Hemert AM. A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychol Med. 1997;27(2):363–370. doi: 10.1017/S0033291796004382.
    1. Boivin J, Takefman J, Braverman A. The fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) tool: development and general psychometric properties. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):409–415. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.046.
    1. Aarts JW, van Empel IW, Boivin J, Nelen WL, Kremer JA, Verhaak CM. Relationship between quality of life and distress in infertility: a validation study of the Dutch FertiQoL. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(5):1112–1118. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der051.
    1. Edwards JR, O’Neill RM. The construct validity of scores on the ways of coping questionnaire: confirmatory analysis of alternative factor structures. Educ Psychol Meas. pp. 955–983.
    1. Lundqvist L, Ahlström G. Psychometric evaluation of the ways of coping questionnaire as applied to clinical and nonclinical groups. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60(5):485–493. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.08.019.
    1. Bramsen I, Bleiker EMA, Triemstra AHM, Van R, Sandra MG. A dutch adaptation of the ways of coping questionnaire: factor structure and psychometric properties. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal. 1995;8(4):337–352. doi: 10.1080/10615809508249383.
    1. Stone AA, Neale JM. New measure of daily coping: development and preliminary results. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984;46(4):892–906.
    1. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321(7262):694–696. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694.
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. .
    1. Junghans C, Feder G, Hemingway H, Timmis A, Jones M. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of “opt-in” versus “opt-out” strategies. BMJ. 2005;331(7522):940. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Treweek S, Pitkethly M, Cook J, Kjeldstrom M, Taskila T, Johansen M, Sullivan F, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R, Mitchell E. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;4(4) MR000013 P107.

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj