Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - 2020
Stephanie Gunderson1, Emily S. Jungheim2, Caleb B. Kallen3, Kenan Omurtag1
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University Division of Reproductive Endocrinology St Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Northwestern University Division of Reproductive Endocrinology Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
3Shady Grove Fertility Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background Since 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners’ opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training. Methods Survey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate in an online survey in April 2012.: Categorical survey responses were expressed as percentages. Written responses were categorized according to common themes regarding effects of reporting on participants’ medical management of patients. The study was primarily qualitative and was not powered to make statistical conclusions. Results Of 1019 surveys sent, 323 participants (31.7%) responded from around the United States, and 275 provided complete data. Nearly all (273 of 282; 96.8%) participants responded that public reporting sometimes or always affected other providers’ practices, and 264 of 281 (93.9%) responded that other practitioners were motivated to deny care to poor-prognosis patients to improve reported success rates. However, only 121 of 282 (42.9%) indicated that public reporting influenced their own medical management. The majority of respondents agreed that public reporting may hinder adoption of single embryo transfer practices (194 of 299; 64.9%) and contribute to the persistent rate of twinning in in vitro fertilization (187 of 279; 67%). A small majority (153 of 279; 54.8%) felt that public reporting did not benefit fellow training, and 58 (61.7%) of the 94 participants who trained fellows believed that having fellows perform embryo transfers reduced pregnancy rates. A small majority (163 of 277; 58.8%) of respondents reported their ART success rates on clinical websites. However, the majority (200 of 275; 72.7%) of respondents compared their success rates with those of other clinics. Finally, most respondents (211 of 277; 76%) believed that most centers that advertised their success rates did so in ways that were misleading to patients. Conclusions Public reporting of ART clinical outcomes is intended to drive improvement, promote trust between patients and providers, and inform consumers and payers. However, providers reported that they modified their practices, felt others denied care to poor-prognosis patients, and limited participation of trainees in procedures in response to public reporting of ART outcomes.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Website, http://www.sart.org, IVF Success. Accessed September 5, 2018.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Website, https://www.cdc.gov. Accessed September 5, 2018.

United S. Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certificate Act of 1992. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. : Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., distributor; 1992.

Lawrence LD, Rosenwaks Z. Implications of the fertility clinic success rate and certification act of 1992. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:288–90.

Blackwell RE, Carr BR, Jeffrey Chang R, DeCherney AH, Haney AF, Keye WR, et al. Are we exploiting the infertile couple? Fertil Steril. 1987;48:735–9.

Williams RS, Doody KJ, Schattman GL, Adashi EY. Public reporting of assisted reproductive technology outcomes: past, present, and future. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:157–62.

2015 Assisted Reproductive (ART) Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/art/reports/2015/national-summary.html. Accessed September 5, 2018.

Fertility Success Rates Website, https://fertilitysuccessrates.com. Accessed September 5, 2018.

IVF Authority Website, https://www.ivfauthority.com/best-ivf-clinics-usa/. Accessed September 5, 2018.

Forbes Website, https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsable/2016/04/15/the-busiest-ivf-clinics-infertility-by-the-numbers-part-1/#735e66c07936. Accessed September 5, 2018.

Adashi EU, Wyden R. Public reporting of clinical outcomes of assisted reproductive technology programs: implications for other medical and surgical procedures. JAMA. 2011;306:1135–6.

Huang JY, Discepola F, Tulandi T. A call for standardization of fertility clinic websites. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:556.

Omurtag K, Grindler NM, Roehl KA, Bates GW Jr, Beltsos AN, Odem RR, et al. How members of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and Society of Reproductive Surgeons evaluate, define, and manage hydrosalpinges. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1095–100 e1–2.

Jungheim ES, Ryan GL, Levens ED, Cunningham AF, Macones GA, Carson KR, et al. Embryo transfer practices in the United States: a survey of clinics registered with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1432–6.

Jain T, Missmer SA, Hornstein MD. Trends in embryo-transfer practice and in outcomes of the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1639–45.

Eaton JL, Zhang X, Barnes RB. Embryo transfer by reproductive endocrinology fellows vs attending physicians: are live birth rates comparable? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:494 e1–5.

Papageorgiou TC, Hearns-Stokes RM, Leondires MP, Miller BT, Chakraborty P, Cruess D, et al. Training of providers in embryo transfer: what is the minimum number of transfers required for proficiency? Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1415–9.

Heitmann RJ, Hill MJ, Csokmay JM, Pilgrim J, DeCherney AH, Deering S. Embryo transfer simulation improves pregnancy rates and decreases time to proficiency in reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1166–72 e1.

Kresowik J, Sparks A, Duran EH, Shah DK. Lapse in embryo transfer training does not negatively affect clinical pregnancy rates for reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellows. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:728–33 e2.

Narins CR, Dozier AM, Ling FS, Zareba W. The influence of public reporting of outcome data on medical decision making by physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:83–7.

Wilkinson J, Vail A, Roberts SA. Direct-to-consumer advertising of success rates for medically assisted reproduction: a review of national clinic websites. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012218.

Doody KJ. Public reporting of assisted reproductive technology cycle outcomes is not simple. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:893–4.

The Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines for advertising by ART programs. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:527–8.

Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet. JAMA. 2000;283:1600–6.

Abusief ME, Hornstein MD, Jain T. American Society for Reproductive M, Society for Assisted Reproductive T. Assessment of United States fertility clinic websites according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) guidelines. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:88–92.

Niederberger CS. Assisted reproductive technologies on the web. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:550–2.

Huang JY, Discepola F, Al-Fozan H, Tulandi T. Quality of fertility clinic websites. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:538–44.

Luceno F, Castilla JA, Gomez-Palomares JL, Cabello Y, Hernandez J, Marqueta J, et al. Comparison of IVF cycles reported in a voluntary ART registry with a mandatory registry in Spain. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:3066–71.

Kulak D, Jindal SK, Oh C, Morelli SS, Kratka S, McGovern PG. Reporting in vitro fertilization cycles to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology database: where have all the cycles gone? Fertil Steril. 2016;105:927–31 e3.

Kushnir VA, Vidali A, Barad DH, Gleicher N. The status of public reporting of clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:736–41.

Doody KJ. Cryopreservation and delayed embryo transfer-assisted reproductive technology registry and reporting implications. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:27–31.

Coutifaris C. Freeze-only in vitro fertilization cycles for all? Fertil Steril. 2017;108:233–4.

Vuong LN, Dang VQ, Ho TM, Huynh BG, Ha DT, Pham TD, et al. IVF transfer of fresh or frozen embryos in women without polycystic ovaries. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:137–47.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Thông tin tác giả