Mary E Abusief1, Mark D Hornstein, Tarun Jain. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate SART-member fertility clinic websites for their compliance with the 2004 ASRM/SART guidelines for advertising (which is deemed mandatory for clinic membership), to survey the general characteristics of the websites, and to assess differences between academic and private clinic websites. DESIGN: Cross-sectional evaluation. SETTING: The Internet. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eleven objective criteria based on 2004 ASRM/SART guidelines for advertising and eight objective criteria for general characteristics of fertility clinic websites. RESULTS: All 384 SART-registered clinics were evaluated; 289 (75.3%) had functional websites (211 private, 78 academic). Success rates were published on 51% of websites (117 private, 31 academic), the majority of which were private clinics (p=.025). The percentage of fertility clinic websites adhering to ASRM/SART guidelines was low in all categories (ranging from 2.8%-54.5% in private centers and 1.3%-37.2% in academic centers). No statistically significant difference was found in the services offered at private versus academic clinics. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of SART-member fertility clinics, both private and academic, that have websites are not following the ASRM/SART guidelines for advertising. Increased dissemination and awareness of the guidelines is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate SART-member fertility clinic websites for their compliance with the 2004 ASRM/SART guidelines for advertising (which is deemed mandatory for clinic membership), to survey the general characteristics of the websites, and to assess differences between academic and private clinic websites. DESIGN: Cross-sectional evaluation. SETTING: The Internet. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eleven objective criteria based on 2004 ASRM/SART guidelines for advertising and eight objective criteria for general characteristics of fertility clinic websites. RESULTS: All 384 SART-registered clinics were evaluated; 289 (75.3%) had functional websites (211 private, 78 academic). Success rates were published on 51% of websites (117 private, 31 academic), the majority of which were private clinics (p=.025). The percentage of fertility clinic websites adhering to ASRM/SART guidelines was low in all categories (ranging from 2.8%-54.5% in private centers and 1.3%-37.2% in academic centers). No statistically significant difference was found in the services offered at private versus academic clinics. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of SART-member fertility clinics, both private and academic, that have websites are not following the ASRM/SART guidelines for advertising. Increased dissemination and awareness of the guidelines is warranted.
Authors: Robert Klitzman; Beata Zolovska; William Folberth; Mark V Sauer; Wendy Chung; Paul Appelbaum Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Leena Nahata; Antoinette Anazodo; Brooke Cherven; Shanna Logan; Lillian R Meacham; Cathy D Meade; Sara Zarnegar-Lumley; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Emma Trawick; Amani Sampson; Kara Goldman; Lisa Campo-Engelstein; Arthur Caplan; David L Keefe; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: F S Rep Date: 2020-09-02