Literature DB >> 27907899

Reducing the number of fetuses in a pregnancy: providers' and patients' views of challenges.

Robert L Klitzman1.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: How do patients and providers perceive and make decisions about possible reductions of multi-fetal pregnancies? SUMMARY ANSWER: Physicians may be transferring additional embryos, assuming that patients will later undergo reduction if need be; but decisions to reduce pregnancies are difficult for patients, who may agree to undergo the procedure in advance and later renege. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Implanting more than one embryo increases the likelihood that at least one embryo will successfully lead to a child but also that the patient may end up with twins or higher-order multiple births. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In-depth interviews of ~1 h each were conducted with 37 ART providers and patients (17 physicians, 10 other health providers and 10 patients) and systematically analyzed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHOD: The telephone interviews explored the participants' views and decisions regarding pregnancy reduction. The answers were analyzed systematically. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Providers may be transferring additional embryos, thinking that doing so will increase the likelihood of a 'take home baby' and that the patients could undergo reductions, if need be, to avoid the risks and complications of twins or multiple births. Yet patients often appear to have difficulty confronting the prospect of fetal reduction and/or renege on prior agreements to undergo the procedure. Providers should thus be wary and exceedingly careful about these situations. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample size was sufficient for qualitative research designed to elucidate the issues and themes that emerge, but not for statistically analyzing how various groups may differ (e.g. physicians versus patients). Future studies should investigate these issues with larger samples. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: These data, the first to examine how IVF providers and patients view and approach decisions regarding the reduction of fetuses, suggest several complications and dilemmas. This information has critical implications for future practice, guidelines, research and education of providers, patients, insurers, policymakers and others. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Funding was provided by grant #UL1 RR024156 from the National Center for Research Resources, the Greenwall Foundation and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  embryos; ethics; in-vitro fertilization; multiple pregnancy; policy; twins

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27907899      PMCID: PMC5088636          DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew231

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  23 in total

1.  Pregnancy outcome after multifetal pregnancy reduction.

Authors:  A Antsaklis; A P Souka; G Daskalakis; N Papantoniou; P Koutra; Y Kavalakis; S Mesogitis
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2004-07

2.  Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Fertility treatments and multiple births in the United States.

Authors:  Aniket D Kulkarni; Denise J Jamieson; Howard W Jones; Dmitry M Kissin; Maria F Gallo; Maurizio Macaluso; Eli Y Adashi
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Belgium model of coupling reimbursement of ART costs to restriction in number of embryos transferred.

Authors:  Diane De Neubourg; Karen Peeraer; Sophie Debrock; Thomas D'Hooghe
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-02-19

5.  Annual summary of vital statistics: 2012-2013.

Authors:  Michelle J K Osterman; Kenneth D Kochanek; Marian F MacDorman; Donna M Strobino; Bernard Guyer
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Impact of an educational intervention and insurance coverage on patients' preferences to transfer multiple embryos.

Authors:  Daniel Griffin; Lindsay Brown; Richard Feinn; Mary Casey Jacob; Victoria Scranton; James Egan; John Nulsen
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2012-04-22       Impact factor: 3.828

7.  Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy.

Authors:  Antonina Sazonova; Karin Källen; Ann Thurin-Kjellberg; Ulla-Britt Wennerholm; Christina Bergh
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Fetal reduction from twins to a singleton: a reasonable consideration?

Authors:  Mark I Evans; Marion I Kaufman; Anita J Urban; David W Britt; John C Fletcher
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Disclosures of Huntington disease risk within families: patterns of decision-making and implications.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman; Deborah Thorne; Jennifer Williamson; Wendy Chung; Karen Marder
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  Embryo transfer practices in the United States: a survey of clinics registered with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Authors:  Emily S Jungheim; Ginny L Ryan; Eric D Levens; Alexandra F Cunningham; George A Macones; Kenneth R Carson; Angeline N Beltsos; Randall R Odem
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2009-09-11       Impact factor: 7.329

View more
  7 in total

1.  How Infertility Patients and Providers View and Confront Religious and Spiritual Issues.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2018-02

2.  The clinical outcomes of selective and spontaneous fetal reduction of twins to a singleton pregnancy in the first trimester: a retrospective study of 10 years.

Authors:  Chao Wang; Fei Tang; Bing Song; Guanjian Li; Qiong Xing; Yunxia Cao
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 4.982

3.  Challenges, Dilemmas and Factors Involved in PGD Decision-Making: Providers' and Patients' Views, Experiences and Decisions.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 2.537

4.  How much is a child worth? Providers' and patients' views and responses concerning ethical and policy challenges in paying for ART.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Impediments to communication and relationships between infertility care providers and patients.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 2.809

6.  The parent trap: desire for multifetal gestation among patients treated for infertility.

Authors:  Seth J Barishansky; Anne P Hutchinson; Angela K Lawson; Mary Ellen Pavone
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 3.357

7.  Gatekeepers for infertility treatment? Views of ART providers concerning referrals by non-ART providers.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Soc Online       Date:  2017-09-24
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.