Feasibility randomized controlled trial of a self-guided online intervention to promote psychosocial adjustment to unmet parenthood goals.

Is it feasible to implement and evaluate an online self-guided psychosocial intervention for people with an unmet parenthood goal (UPG), aimed to improve well-being, in an online randomized controlled trial (RCT)? The evaluation of an online bilingual self-guided psychosocial intervention for people with a UPG is feasible, reflected by high demand, good acceptability, good adaptation and promise of efficacy, but minor adjustments to the intervention and study design of the RCT should be made to enhance practicality. Self-identifying as having a UPG, defined as being unable to have children or as many as desired, is associated with impaired well-being and mental health. Practice guidelines and regulatory bodies have highlighted the need to address the lack of evidence-based support for this population. It is unknown if MyJourney (www.myjourney.pt), the first online self-guided intervention for people with UPGs, can be implemented and evaluated in an RCT. To evaluate the feasibility of MyJourney, we conducted a registered, two-arm, parallel group, non-blinded feasibility RCT, with a 1:1 computer-generated randomized allocation and embedded qualitative process evaluation. Participants were included between November 2020 and March 2021. Assessments were made before randomization (T1), 10 weeks (T2) and 6 months after (T3, intervention group only). Participants allocated to the intervention group received an email to access MyJourney immediately after randomization. Participants in the waitlist control group were given access to MyJourney after completing the 10-week assessment (T2). Participants were recruited via social media advertising of MyJourney and its feasibility study. People who self-identified as having a UPG could click on a link to participate, and of these 235 were randomized. Outcome measures related to demand, acceptability, implementation, practicality, adaptation and limited efficacy were assessed via online surveys. The primary outcome in limited efficacy testing was hedonic well-being, measured with the World Health Organisation Wellbeing Index (WHO-5). Participation and retention rates were 58.3%, 31.7% (T2) and 45.2% (T3, intervention group only), respectively. Of participants invited to register with MyJourney, 91 (76.5%) set up an account, 51 (47.2%) completed the first Step of MyJourney, 12 (11.1%) completed six Steps (sufficient dose) and 6 (5.6%) completed all Steps within the 10-week recommended period. Acceptability ranged from 2.79 (successful at supporting) to 4.42 (easy to understand) on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely acceptable) scale. Average time to complete sufficient dose was 15.6 h (SD = 18.15) and to complete all Steps was 12.4 h (SD = 18.15), with no differences found for participants using MyJourney in Portuguese and English. Modified intention-to-treat analysis showed a moderate increase in well-being from T1 to T2 in the intervention group (ηp2 = 0.156, mean difference (MD) = 9.300 (2.285, 16.315)) and no changes in the control group (ηp2 = 0.000, MD = 0.047 (-3.265, 3.358)). Participants in the process evaluation reported MyJourney was needed and answered their needs for support (reflecting high demand and acceptability), the recommended period to engage with MyJourney was short, and their engagement was influenced by multiple factors, including personal (e.g. lack of time) and MyJourney related (e.g. reminders). Participants were mostly white, well-educated, employed, childless women. Non-blinded allocation, use of self-reported questionnaire assessments and high attrition in the intervention group could have triggered bias favourable to positive evaluations of MyJourney and resulted in low power to detect T2 to T3 changes in limited efficacy outcomes. MyJourney can proceed to efficacy testing, but future work should eliminate barriers for engagement and explore strategies to maximize adherence. Entities wanting to support people with UPGs now have a freely accessible and promising resource that can be further tested and evaluated in different settings. MyJourney's development was funded by the charity Portuguese Fertility Association, Cardiff University and University of Coimbra (CINEICC). Dr S.G. reports consultancy fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, speaker fees from Access Fertility, SONA-Pharm LLC, Meridiano Congress International and Gedeon Richter and grants from Merck Serono Ltd. Bethan Rowbottom holds a PhD scholarship funded by the School of Psychology, Cardiff University. The other authors have no conflicts of interest. Clinical Trials.gov NCT04850482.

Rowbottom B ，Galhardo A ，Donovan E ，Gameiro S ... -  《-》

Qualitative evaluation of the acceptability and feasibility among healthcare professionals and patients of an ART multi-cycle treatment planning and continuation intervention prototype.

Is it possible to design an ART Treatment Planning and Continuation Intervention (TPCI) that is considered acceptable and feasible to patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs)? HCPs and patients responded positively to the TPCI prototype and perceived it as an acceptable intervention to support patients to stay engaged with planned treatment, but some concerns were raised about the feasibility of using it in practice. People discontinue ART due to its psychological burden. Digital tools to support people undergoing ART are available but typically focus only on practical support rather than psychological support. Research about treatment continuation and multi-cycle planning indicates that cognitive factors (expectations, intentions, efficacy beliefs) should be targets of interventions designed to help patients engage with and continue treatment to meet their personal treatment plans and goals. However, it is not known whether this form of psychological support would be acceptable for HCPs and patients or feasible to implement in practice. Qualitative cognitive interviews with HCPs and patients (May 2021). Patients were eligible if they had had a consultation to start a first/repeat stimulated IVF/ICSI cycle in the 8 weeks prior to recruitment, were aged 18 or older (upper age limit of 42 years for women) and fluent in English. Eligible HCPs were those employed by a fertility clinic who were responsible for delivering treatment planning consultations to patients. HCPs and patients were asked to think aloud while being exposed to and exploring the TPCI in one-to-one online cognitive interviews. The TPCI was designed to reduce treatment discontinuation via cognitive factors namely formation and maintenance of multi-cycle ART intentions and efficiency of decision-making during treatment, and continuation of treatment after an unsuccessful cycle (when recommended). To impact cognitive factors the TPCI comprised of two components: an expectation management and reasoning checklist for HCPs to use during planning consultations (TPCI Checklist) and a multi-feature cognitive support mobile application (TPCI App) for patients to use prior to and during treatment. After participants thought aloud while being exposed to the TPCI prototype (both components) they were asked open questions concerning their perceptions of the core components and activities on eight acceptability dimensions (e.g. acceptability, demand, integration). Interviews lasted between 40 and 90 min, were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Thirteen HCPs and 13 patients participated in 25 online interviews. Thematic analysis using inductive and deductive coding generated 180 codes, grouped into 22 categories and synthesized into 9 themes. The themes showed that HCPs and patients provided positive feedback about the TPCI, perceiving it as a needed, acceptable and potentially effective way to forewarn patients of the possible need for multiple cycles, to provide patients with a sense of patient-clinic collaboration and support, and to bolster treatment intentions, all of which were perceived to contribute to reduced treatment discontinuation. HCPs perceived implementation of the TPCI Checklist to be challenging in its current length due to time pressures and clinic workload. Suggestions for enhancing the TPCI Checklist and App were provided, but none required critical changes to its core components or activities. All patients were women recruited from social media websites, mainly associated with patient support groups, who may be highly committed to their fertility treatment. HCPs were predominantly from private fertility clinics. The findings suggest there is demand for digital support geared towards motivational aspects of undergoing ART. The TPCI is an acceptable support tool to meet that need according to HCPs responsible for delivering planning consultations and patients undergoing fertility treatment. Future research is needed to develop the prototype and examine the feasibility of implementation of the TPCI in clinics. This research was financially supported by Merck Serono Ltd, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. 'Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy only before journal submission. The authors are fully responsible for the content of this manuscript, and the views and opinions described in the publication reflect solely those of the authors' J.B. reports personal fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck AB an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany, Theramex, Organon JJC, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, research grant from Merck Serono Ltd, grants from ESHRE outside the submitted work and that she is co-developer of Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) and MediEmo app. S.G. reports consultancy fees from TMRW Life Sciences and Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, speaker fees from Access Fertility, SONA-Pharm LLC, Meridiano Congress International and Gedeon Richter. C.H. declares no conflicts of interest. N/A.

Harrison C ，Gameiro S ，Boivin J 《-》

Psychosocial wellbeing shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy compared with a fresh transfer strategy in women and men: a sub-study of a randomized controlled trial.

Is the psychosocial wellbeing affected in women and men shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer compared to a fresh transfer strategy? In general, psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) was similar in women and men allocated to a freeze-all versus those allocated to a fresh-transfer strategy 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy (i.e. 4 days after oocyte retrieval), although women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to women in the fresh transfer group. The use of a freeze-all strategy, i.e. freezing of the entire embryo cohort followed by elective frozen embryo transfer in subsequent cycles has increased steadily over the past decade in assisted reproductive technology (ART). This strategy essentially eliminates the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and has proven beneficial regarding some reproductive outcomes in subgroups of women. However, patients experience a longer time interval between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer, hence a longer time to pregnancy, possibly adding additional stress to the ART treatment. So far, little focus has been on the possible psychosocial strains caused by postponement of embryo transfer. This is a self-reported questionnaire based sub-study of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 460 women and 396 male partners initiating their first, second, or third treatment cycle of invitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from May 2016 to September 2018. This sub-study was included in the primary project protocol and project plan for the RCT, as psychosocial wellbeing was considered a secondary outcome. Women from eight public fertility clinics in Denmark and Sweden and one private clinic in Spain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio on the day of inclusion (menstrual cycle day 2 or 3) to either a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer to a subsequent modified natural menstrual cycle or a fresh transfer strategy with embryo transfer in the hormone stimulated cycle. Treatment allocation was blinded until the day of the ovulation trigger. Women and their male partners were asked to complete a validated self-reported questionnaire 6 days after unblinding of treatment group allocation, corresponding to 4 days after oocyte retrieval, investigating their psychosocial wellbeing related to the treatment defined as emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit. The questionnaire included items from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility (COMPI) Fertility Problem Stress Scales and the COMPI Marital Benefit Measure. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups for both women and men. In total, response rates were 90.7% for women and 90.2% for men. In the freeze-all group, 207 women and 179 men completed the questionnaire compared with 204 women and 178 men in the fresh transfer group. Men in the two treatment groups did not differ in any of the explored aspects of psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy. Women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms (P = 0.045) and mood swings (P = 0.001) (i.e. variables included in 'emotional reactions to treatment') compared to women in the fresh transfer group. When adjusted for multiple testing, depressive symptoms were no longer significantly different between the two groups. No additional differences in psychosocial wellbeing were found. Self-reported quality-of-life during treatment was also rated as similar between the two groups in both women and men, but was slightly lower than they would rate their quality-of-life when not in fertility treatment. Although response rates were high, selection bias cannot be excluded. As this study was an RCT, we assume that psychosocial characteristics of the participants were equally distributed in the two groups, thus it is unlikely that the identified psychosocial differences between the freeze-all and fresh transfer group were present already at baseline. Furthermore, the questionnaire was completed as a one-time assessment 4 days after oocyte retrieval, thus not reflecting the whole treatment process, whereas an assessment after the full completed treatment cycle is needed to draw firm conclusions about the psychosocial consequences of the whole waiting period. However, a question posted that late would be highly biased on whether or not a pregnancy had been achieved. The results indicate that individuals in the freeze-all group exhibited slightly higher levels of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to those in the fresh transfer group. Nevertheless, it is important to note that any worries related to potential emotional strains stemming from delaying embryo transfer should not overshadow the adoption of a freeze-all approach in cases where it is clinically recommended. As long as patients are provided with comprehensive information about the treatment strategy before initiating the process, it is worth emphasising that other aspects of psychosocial wellbeing were comparable between the two groups. The study is part of the Reprounion collaborative study, co-financed by the European Union, Interreg V Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak. L.P. reports financial support from Merck A/S. H.S.N. reports grants from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, Ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond and Independent Research Fund Denmark and personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, Cook Medical, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. H.S.N is founder and chairman of the Maternity Foundation and co-developed the Safe Delivery App (non-profit). N.C.F. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck A/S, Cryos International and financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. N.C.F. is chairman in the steering committee for the guideline groups for The Danish Fertility Society (non-profit). P.H. reports honoraria from Merch A/S, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. A.L.M.E. reports grants and financial support from Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and personal fees from Preglem S.A., Novo Nordic Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos International, Merch A/S, Theramex and Organon and the lend of embryoscope to the institution from Gedeon Richter. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02746562.

Pilegaard SP ，Schmidt L ，Stormlund S ，Koert E ，Bogstad JW ，Prætorius L ，Nielsen HS ，la Cour Freiesleben N ，Sopa N ，Klajnbard A ，Humaidan P ，Bergh C ，Englund ALM ，Løssl K ，Pinborg A ... -  《-》

Discussing the possibility of fertility treatment being unsuccessful as part of routine care offered at clinics: patients' experiences, willingness, and preferences.

Are patients willing to discuss the possibility of treatment being unsuccessful as part of routine care offered at clinics, and what are the factors associated with this willingness? Nine in every 10 patients are willing to discuss this possibility as part of routine care, with willingness being associated with higher perceived benefits, lower barriers, and stronger positive attitudes towards it. Fifty-eight percent of patients who complete up to three cycles of IVF/ICSI in the UK do not achieve a live birth. Offering psychosocial care for unsuccessful fertility treatment (PCUFT), defined as assistance and guidance on the implications of treatment being unsuccessful, could reduce the psychosocial distress patients experience when it happens, and promote positive adjustment to this loss. Research shows 56% of patients are willing to plan for an unsuccessful cycle, but little is known about their willingness and preferences towards discussing the possibility of definitive unsuccessful treatment. The study was of cross-sectional design, comprising a theoretically driven and patient-centred bilingual (English, Portuguese) mixed-methods online survey. The survey was disseminated via social media (April 2021-January 2022). Eligibility criteria included being aged 18 or older, waiting to or undergoing an IVF/ICSI cycle, or having completed a cycle within the previous 6 months without achieving a pregnancy. Out of 651 people accessing the survey, 451 (69.3%) consented to participate. From these, 100 did not complete 50% of the survey questions, nine did not report on the primary outcome variable (willingness), and 342 completed the survey (completion rate 75.8%, 338 women). The survey was informed by the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Quantitative questions covered sociodemographic characteristics and treatment history. Quantitative and qualitative questions gathered data on past experiences, willingness, and preferences (with whom, what, how and when) to receive PCUFT, as well as theory-informed factors hypothesized to be associated with patients' willingness to receive it. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used on quantitative data about PCUFT experiences, willingness, and preferences, and thematic analysis was applied to textual data. Two logistic regressions were used to investigate the factors associated with patients' willingness. Participants were, on average, 36 years old and most resided in Portugal (59.9%) and the UK (38.0%). The majority (97.1%) were in a relationship for around 10 years, and 86.3% were childless. Participants were undergoing treatment for, on average, 2 years [SD = 2.11, range: 0-12 years], with most (71.8%) having completed at least one IVF/ICSI cycle in the past, almost all (93.5%) without success. Around one-third (34.9%) reported having received PCUFT. Thematic analysis showed participants received it mainly from their consultant. The main topic discussed was patients' low prognosis, with the emphasis being put on achieving a positive outcome. Almost all participants (93.3%) would like to receive PCUFT. Reported preferences indicated that 78.6% wanted to receive it from a psychologist/psychiatrist/counsellor, mostly in case of a bad prognosis (79.4%), emotional distress (73.5%), or difficulties in accepting the possibility of treatment being unsuccessful (71.2%). The preferred time to receive PCUFT was before initiating the first cycle (73.3%), while the preferred format was in an individual (mean = 6.37, SD = 1.17; in 1-7 scale) or couple (mean = 6.34, SD = 1.24; in 1-7 scale) session. Thematic analysis showed participants would like PCUFT to provide an overview of treatment and all possible outcomes tailored to each patient's circumstances and to encompass psychosocial support, mainly focused on coping strategies to process loss and sustain hope towards the future. Willingness to receive PCUFT was associated with higher perceived benefit of building psychosocial resources and coping strategies (odds ratios (ORs) 3.40, 95% CI 1.23-9.38), lower perceived barrier of triggering negative emotions (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.98), and stronger positive attitudes about PCUFT being beneficial and useful (OR 3.32, 95% CI 2.12-5.20). Self-selected sample, mainly composed of female patients who had not yet achieved their parenthood goals. The small number of participants unwilling to receive PCUFT reduced statistical power. The primary outcome variable was intentions, and research shows a moderate association between intentions and actual behaviour. Fertility clinics should provide patients with early opportunities to discuss the possibility of their treatment being unsuccessful as part of routine care. PCUFT should focus on minimizing suffering associated with grief and loss by reassuring patients they can cope with any treatment outcome, promoting coping resources, and signposting to additional support. M.S.-L. holds a doctoral fellowship from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. [Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia] (FCT; SFRH/BD/144429/2019). R.C. holds a post-doctoral fellowship supported by the European Social Fund (ESF) and FCT (SFRH/BPD/117597/2016). The EPIUnit, ITR and CIPsi (PSI/01662) are also financed by FCT through the Portuguese State Budget, in the scope of the projects UIDB/04750/2020, LA/P/0064/2020 and UIDB/PSI/01662/2020, respectively. Dr Gameiro reports consultancy fees from TMRW Life Sciences and Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, speaker fees from Access Fertility, SONA-Pharm LLC, Meridiano Congress International and Gedeon Richter, grants from Merck Serono Ltd, an affiliate of Merck KgaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N/A.

Sousa-Leite M ，Costa R ，Figueiredo B ，Gameiro S ... -  《-》

Patient experiences of fertility clinic closure during the COVID-19 pandemic: appraisals, coping and emotions.

What are appraisals, coping strategies and emotional reactions of patients to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) fertility clinic closures? Clinic closure was appraised as stressful due to uncertainty and threat to the attainability of the parenthood goal but patients were able to cope using strategies that fit the uncertainty of the situation. Psychological research on COVID-19 suggests that people are more anxious than historical norms and moderately to extremely upset about fertility treatment cancellation owing to COVID-19. The study was of cross-sectional design, comprising a mixed-methods, English language, anonymous, online survey posted from April 9 to 21 to social media. Eligibility criteria were being affected by COVID-19 fertility clinic closure, 18 years of age or older and able to complete the survey in English. In total, 946 people clicked on the survey link, 76 did not consent, 420 started but did not complete the survey and 450 completed (48% completion, 446 women, four men). Overall 74.7% (n = 336) of respondents were residents in the UK with an average age of 33.6 years (SD = 4.4) and average years trying to conceive, 3.5 years (SD = 2.22). The survey comprised quantitative questions about the intensity of cognitive appraisals and emotions about clinic closure, and ability to cope with clinic closure. Open-text questions covered their understanding of COVID-19 and its effect on reproductive health and fertility plans, concerns and perceived benefits of clinic closure, and knowledge about closure. Sociodemographic information was collected. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used on quantitative data. Thematic qualitative analysis (inductive coding) was performed on the textual data from each question. Deductive coding grouped themes from each question into meta-themes related to cognitive stress and coping theory. Most patients (81.6%, n = 367) had tests or treatments postponed, with these being self (41.3%, n = 186) or publicly (46.4%, n = 209) funded. Patients appraised fertility clinic closure as having potential for a more negative than positive impact on their lives, and to be very or extremely uncontrollable and stressful (P ≤ 0.001). Most reported a slight to moderate ability to cope with closure. Data saturation was achieved with all open-text questions, with 33 broad themes identified and four meta-themes linked to components of the cognitive stress and coping theory. First, participants understood clinic closure was precautionary due to unknown effects of COVID-19 but some felt clinic closure was unfair relative to advice about getting pregnant given to the public. Second, closure was appraised as a threat to attainability of the parenthood goal largely due to uncertainty of the situation (e.g. re-opening, effect of delay) and intensification of pre-existing hardships of fertility problems (e.g. long time waiting for treatment, history of failed treatment). Third, closure taxed personal coping resources but most were able to cope using thought-management (e.g. distraction, focusing on positives), getting mentally and physically fit for next treatments, strengthening their social network, and keeping up-to-date. Finally, participants reported more negative than positive emotions (P ≤ 0.001) and, almost all participants reported stress, worry and frustration at the situation, while some expressed anger and resentment at the unfairness of the situation. Overall, 11.8% were not at all able to cope, with reports of intense feelings of hopelessness and deteriorating well-being and mental health. The survey captures patient reactions at a specific point in time, during lockdown and before clinics announced re-opening. Participants were self-selected (e.g. UK residents, women, 48% starting but not completing the survey), which may affect generalisability. Fertility stakeholders (e.g. clinics, patient support groups, regulators, professional societies) need to work together to address the great uncertainty from COVID-19. This goal can be met proactively by setting up transparent processes for COVID-19 eventualities and signposting to information and coping resources. Future psychological research priorities should be on identifying patients at risk of distress with standardised measures and developing digital technologies appropriate for the realities of fertility care under COVID-19. University funded research. Outside of the submitted work, Prof. J.B. reports personal fees from Merck KGaA, Merck AB, Theramex, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S; grants from Merck Serono Ltd; and that she is co-developer of the Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) and MediEmo apps. Outside of the submitted work, Dr R.M. reports personal or consultancy fees from Manchester Fertility, Gedeon Richter, Ferring and Merck. Outside of the submitted work, Dr S.G. reports consultancy fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Access Fertility and SONA-Pharm LLC, and grants from Merck Serono Ltd. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. N/A.

Boivin J ，Harrison C ，Mathur R ，Burns G ，Pericleous-Smith A ，Gameiro S ... -  《-》