Does a strategy to promote shared decision-making reduce medical practice variation in the choice of either single or double embryo transfer after in vitro fertilisation? A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Anne E M Brabers, Liset van Dijk, Peter P Groenewegen, Arno M van Peperstraten, Judith D de Jong, Anne E M Brabers, Liset van Dijk, Peter P Groenewegen, Arno M van Peperstraten, Judith D de Jong

Abstract

Objectives: The hypothesis that shared decision-making (SDM) reduces medical practice variations is increasingly common, but no evidence is available. We aimed to elaborate further on this, and to perform a first exploratory analysis to examine this hypothesis. This analysis, based on a limited data set, examined how SDM is associated with variation in the choice of single embryo transfer (SET) or double embryo transfer (DET) after in vitro fertilisation (IVF). We examined variation between and within hospitals.

Design: A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Setting: 5 hospitals in the Netherlands.

Participants: 222 couples (woman aged <40 years) on a waiting list for a first IVF cycle, who could choose between SET and DET (ie, ≥2 embryos available).

Intervention: SDM via a multifaceted strategy aimed to empower couples in deciding how many embryos should be transferred. The strategy consisted of decision aid, support of IVF nurse and the offer of reimbursement for an extra treatment cycle. Control group received standard IVF care.

Outcome measure: Difference in variation due to SDM in the choice of SET or DET, both between and within hospitals.

Results: There was large variation in the choice of SET or DET between hospitals in the control group. Lower variation between hospitals was observed in the group with SDM. Within most hospitals, variation in the choice of SET or DET appeared to increase due to SDM. Variation particularly increased in hospitals where mainly DET was chosen in the control group.

Conclusions: Although based on a limited data set, our study gives a first insight that including patients' preferences through SDM results in less variation between hospitals, and indicates another pattern of variation within hospitals. Variation that results from patient preferences could be potentially named the informed patient rate. Our results provide the starting point for further research.

Trial registration number: NCT00315029; Post-results.

Keywords: in vitro fertilisation; medical practice variation; patient involvement; patients’ preferences; shared decision-making.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Variation within hospitals. A measure of variation for the control and intervention groups per hospital. DET, double embryo transfer; SET, single embryo transfer.

References

    1. Paul-Shaheen P, Clark JD, Williams D. Small area analysis: a review and analysis of the North American literature. J Health Polit Policy Law 1987;12:741–809. 10.1215/03616878-12-4-741
    1. Wennberg JE. Understanding geographic variations in health care delivery. N Engl J Med 1999;340:52–3. 10.1056/NEJM199901073400111
    1. Wennberg JE. Tracking medicine: a researcher's quest to understand health care. Oxford University Press, 2010.
    1. Corallo AN, Croxford R, Goodman DC et al. . A systematic review of medical practice variation in OECD countries. Health Policy 2014;114:5–14. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.08.002
    1. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1992;267:2221–6. 10.1001/jama.1992.03480160079038
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997;44:681–92.
    1. Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ 2002;325:961 10.1136/bmj.325.7370.961
    1. McPherson K. Why do variations occur? In: Andersen TF, Mooney G, eds. The challenges of medical practice variations. London: The Macmillan Press, 1990:16–35.
    1. Wennberg JE, Gittelsohn A. Health care delivery in Maine I: patterns of use of common surgical procedures. J Maine Med Assoc 1975;66:123–30, 149.
    1. Mercuri M, Gafni A. Medical practice variations: what the literature tells us (or does not) about what are warranted and unwarranted variations. J Eval Clin Pract 2011;17:671–7. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01689.x
    1. De Jong JD, Groenewegen PP, Westert GP. Sociological model for understanding medical practice variations. In: Sobolev B, (Series ed) Johnson A, Stukel T, eds. Health services research series medical practice variations. New York: Springer, 2015:1–15.
    1. Chassin MR. Explaining geographic variations. The enthusiasm hypothesis. Med Care 1993;31(5 Suppl):Ys37–44.
    1. De Jong JD. Explaining medical practice variation. Social organization and institutional mechanisms. NIVEL, 2008.
    1. Westert GP, Groenewegen PP. Medical practice variations: changing the theoretical approach. Scand J Public Health 1999;27:173–80. 10.1177/14034948990270030801
    1. van de Bovenkamp HM, Trappenburg MJ, Grit KJ. Patient participation in collective healthcare decision making: the Dutch model. Health Expect 2010;13:73–85. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00567.x
    1. Guadagnoli E, Ward P. Patient participation in decision-making. Soc Sci Med 1998;47:329–39. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00059-8
    1. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med 1999;17:285–94. 10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00097-5
    1. Fraenkel L. Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decision making. Med Care Res Rev 2013;70(1 Suppl):80s–93s. 10.1177/1077558712461283
    1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academies Press, 2001.
    1. Wennberg JE. Variation in use of Medicare services among regions and selected academic medical centers: is more better? Commonwealth Fund, 2005.
    1. Greer AL, Goodwin JS, Freeman JL et al. . Bringing the patient back in. Guidelines, practice variations, and the social context of medical practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:747–61.
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:651–61. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00145-8
    1. O'Connor AM, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Flood AB. Modifying unwarranted variations in health care: shared decision making using patient decision aids. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;SupplVariation:VAR63–72. 10.1377/hlthaff.var.63
    1. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R et al. . Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:1361–7. 10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6
    1. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A et al. . Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ 2010;341:c5146 10.1136/bmj.c5146
    1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ et al. . Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011(10):Cd001431 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3
    1. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Weinstein J et al. . Involving patients in clinical decisions: impact of an interactive video program on use of back surgery. Med Care 2000;38:959–69. 10.1097/00005650-200009000-00009
    1. McClure W. Toward development and application of a qualitative theory of hospital utilization. Inquiry 1982;19:117–35.
    1. O'Connor AM, Wennberg JE, Legare F et al. . Toward the ‘tipping point’: decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:716–25. 10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.716
    1. Stiggelbout AM, Van der Weijden T, De Wit MP et al. . Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ 2012;344:e256 10.1136/bmj.e256
    1. Weinstein JN, Bronner KK, Morgan TS et al. . Trends and geographic variations in major surgery for degenerative diseases of the hip, knee, and spine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;Suppl Variation: Var81–9. 10.1377/hlthaff.var.81
    1. van Peperstraten A, Nelen W, Grol R et al. . The effect of a multifaceted empowerment strategy on decision making about the number of embryos transferred in in vitro fertilisation: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010;341:c2501 10.1136/bmj.c2501
    1. Pandian Z, Marjoribanks J, Ozturk O et al. . Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;7:Cd003416 10.1002/14651858.CD003416.pub4
    1. Pinborg A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update 2005;11:575–93. 10.1093/humupd/dmi027
    1. Andersen AN, Goossens V, Ferraretti AP et al. . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2008;23:756–71. 10.1093/humrep/den014
    1. de Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S et al. . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2010;25:1851–62. 10.1093/humrep/deq124
    1. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, Kupka M et al. . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2009: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2318–31. 10.1093/humrep/det278
    1. van Peperstraten A. Implementation of single embryo transfer: a patient directed strategy. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 2009.
    1. Van Peperstraten AM, Kreuwel IA, Hermens 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. 10.1080/00016340701855670
    1. Barry MJ. Shared decision making: informing and involving patients to do the right thing in health care. J Ambul Care Manage 2012;35:90–8. 10.1097/JAC.0b013e318249482f
    1. Dartmouth Atlas. A Dartmouth Atlas project topic brief preference-sensitive care. Lebanon: The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, 2007.
    1. Westert GP, Groenewegen PP, Lindenberg SM. De invloed van ziekenhuispatiënten op de duur van de hospitalisatie. TSG 1991;69:184–94.
    1. Hajjaj FM, Salek MS, Basra MK et al. . Non-clinical influences on clinical decision-making: a major challenge to evidence-based practice. J R Soc Med 2010;103:178–87. 10.1258/jrsm.2010.100104
    1. Kreuwel IA, van Peperstraten AM, Hulscher ME et al. . Evaluation of an effective multifaceted implementation strategy for elective single-embryo transfer after in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2013;28:336–42. 10.1093/humrep/des371
    1. [No authors listed] Prevention of twin pregnancies after IVF/ICSI by single embryo transfer. ESHRE Campus Course Report. Hum Reprod 2001;16:790–800.
    1. Wolner-Hanssen P, Rydhstroem H. Cost-effectiveness analysis of in-vitro fertilization: estimated costs per successful pregnancy after transfer of one or two embryos. Hum Reprod 1998;13:88–94. 10.1093/humrep/13.1.88
    1. Lukassen HG, Schönbeck Y, Adang EM et al. . Cost analysis of singleton versus twin pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1240–6. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.10.029
    1. van Peperstraten AM, Hermens RP, Nelen WL 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. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.04.007
    1. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D et al. . Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006;333:417 10.1136/

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever