BACKGROUND: European guidelines on fertility care emphasize that subfertile couples should receive information about their chances of a natural conception and should not be exposed to unnecessary treatments and risks. Prognostic models can help to estimate their chances and select couples with a good prognosis for tailored expectant management (TEM). Nevertheless, TEM is not always practiced. The aim of this study was to identify any barriers or facilitators for TEM among professionals and subfertile couples. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed with semi-structured in-depth interviews of 21 subfertile patients who were counselled for TEM and three focus-group interviews of 21 professionals in the field of reproductive medicine. Two theoretical models were used to guide the interviews and the analyses. The primary outcome was the set of identified barriers and facilitators which influence implementation of TEM. RESULTS: Among the subfertile couples, main barriers were a lack of confidence in natural conception, a perception that expectant management is a waste of time, inappropriate expectations prior to the first consultation, misunderstanding the reason for expectant management and overestimation of the success rates of treatment. Both couples and professionals saw the lack of patient information materials as a barrier. Among professionals, limited knowledge about prognostic models leading to a decision in favour of treatment was recognized as a main barrier. A main facilitator mentioned by the professionals was better management of patients' expectations. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several barriers and facilitators which can be addressed to improve the implementation of TEM. These should be taken into account when designing future implementation strategies.
BACKGROUND: European guidelines on fertility care emphasize that subfertile couples should receive information about their chances of a natural conception and should not be exposed to unnecessary treatments and risks. Prognostic models can help to estimate their chances and select couples with a good prognosis for tailored expectant management (TEM). Nevertheless, TEM is not always practiced. The aim of this study was to identify any barriers or facilitators for TEM among professionals and subfertile couples. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed with semi-structured in-depth interviews of 21 subfertile patients who were counselled for TEM and three focus-group interviews of 21 professionals in the field of reproductive medicine. Two theoretical models were used to guide the interviews and the analyses. The primary outcome was the set of identified barriers and facilitators which influence implementation of TEM. RESULTS: Among the subfertile couples, main barriers were a lack of confidence in natural conception, a perception that expectant management is a waste of time, inappropriate expectations prior to the first consultation, misunderstanding the reason for expectant management and overestimation of the success rates of treatment. Both couples and professionals saw the lack of patient information materials as a barrier. Among professionals, limited knowledge about prognostic models leading to a decision in favour of treatment was recognized as a main barrier. A main facilitator mentioned by the professionals was better management of patients' expectations. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several barriers and facilitators which can be addressed to improve the implementation of TEM. These should be taken into account when designing future implementation strategies.
Authors: Jozette Jc Stienen; Petronella B Ottevanger; Lianne Wennekes; Helena M Dekker; Richard Wm van der Maazen; Caroline Mpw Mandigers; Johan Hjm van Krieken; Nicole Ma Blijlevens; Rosella Pmg Hermens Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2015-01-09
Authors: Laurel Liang; Susanne Bernhardsson; Robin W M Vernooij; Melissa J Armstrong; André Bussières; Melissa C Brouwers; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Fenne M Casteleijn; Sandra E Zwolsman; Claudia R Kowalik; Jan-Paul P W R Roovers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Eline A F Dancet; Thomas M D'Hooghe; Felicia Dreischor; Madelon van Wely; Ellen T M Laan; Cornelius B Lambalk; Sjoerd Repping; Inge M Custers Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: R van Eekelen; N van Geloven; M van Wely; S Bhattacharya; F van der Veen; M J Eijkemans; D J McLernon Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 6.353
Authors: Felicia Dreischor; Ellen T M Laan; Fleur Peeters; Karen Peeraer; Cornelis B Lambalk; Mariëtte Goddijn; Inge M Custers; Eline A F Dancet Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2022-09-15
Authors: Noortje M van den Boogaard; Fleur A M Kersten; Mariëtte Goddijn; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Fulco van der Veen; Peter G A Hompes; Rosella P M G Hermens; Didi D M Braat; Ben Willem J Mol; Willianne L D M Nelen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 7.327