Regional disparities in access to assisted reproductive technology: assessment of patient satisfaction when employing modern technology to close the gap

The impacts of telemedicine on assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Telemedicine is being applied in assisted reproduction technology (ART) to provide remote consultations, monitoring and support for patients. This study aimed to evaluate the potential advantages of telemedicine in ART treatment in the form of virtual consultations. Studies in which patients were using telemedicine during ART treatment were identified from four scientific databases (PudMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science). The success of fertility treatments was compared between telemedicine and in-office care, and patient satisfaction with ART through telemedicine was assessed. Eleven studies, comprising 4697 patients, were identified. Quality assessment (Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal and revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools) revealed an acceptable risk of bias for both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Using a fixed-effects model, telemedicine was comparable to in-person care regarding the pregnancy rate achieved (odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence intervals 0.83-1.26, P = 0.83). A Q-test suggested that all the included studies were homogeneous. Patients who received telemedicine during fertility treatment reported a high level of satisfaction (91%, 95% confidence intervals 80-96%). Egger's test confirmed that no publication bias was found. Telemedicine could serve as a complementary tool during fertility treatment to facilitate patients' satisfaction and overcome some practical problems without compromising treatment outcomes. Future studies should continue exploring the potential applications of telemedicine in assisted reproduction.

Patient satisfaction with telemedicine and in-person visits in reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinics

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is patient satisfaction higher with telemedicine visits or in-person visits for an initial consultation in the ambulatory fertility setting?

DESIGN

A survey study of fertility patients who had an initial consultation visit between January 2018 and September 2022 was conducted using a nationally distributed survey. Patient satisfaction and other outcomes pertaining to patient experience were compared between telemedicine and in-person visits.

RESULTS

In total, 682 participants completed the survey nationwide; of these, 425 respondents had an in-person visit and 257 respondents had a telemedicine visit. Age, geographic region, race, education level, employment status, income level and marital status did not differ between the groups. Overall, 69.6% of participants were satisfied with telemedicine visits, with improvement in partner participation. More patients were satisfied with in-person visits compared with telemedicine visits (82.6% versus 69.6%, P<0.001), and more patients preferred in-person visits to telemedicine visits regardless of the type of appointment they had for their initial visit. In a subgroup analysis of patients seen during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, patients who had telemedicine visits were younger, more likely to be White, more educated and had a higher income compared with patients who had in-person visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Previously, the impact of telemedicine in the fertility setting was largely unknown. This study demonstrated that the majority of patients were satisfied with health care through telemedicine visits. However, patients were more satisfied with in-person visits, and preferred in-person visits to telemedicine visits. Further studies are needed to help clarify the differences in patient satisfaction with visit type, and to assess the role of telemedicine in future fertility care.

Racial disparities in telehealth use during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on initial infertility consultations.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Fertility practice in an academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Patients presenting for initial infertility consultation between January 2019 and June 2021 were randomly selected for prepandemic (n = 500) and pandemic (n = 500) cohorts.

EXPOSURE

Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was a change in the proportion of African American patients using telehealth after pandemic onset compared with all other patients. Secondary outcomes included presentation to an appointment vs. no-show or cancellation. Exploratory outcomes included appointment length and in vitro fertilization initiation.

RESULTS

The prepandemic cohort vs. the pandemic cohort had fewer patients with commercial insurance (64.4% vs. 72.80%) and more African American patients (33.0% vs. 27.0%), although the racial makeup did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. Rates of missed appointments did not differ between the cohorts, but the prepandemic cohort vs. the pandemic cohort was more likely to no-show (49.4% vs. 27.8%) and less likely to cancel (50.6% vs. 72.2%). African American patients, compared with all other patients, during the pandemic were less likely to use telehealth (57.0% vs. 66.8%). African American patients, compared with all other patients, were less likely to have commercial insurance (prepandemic: 41.2% vs. 75.8%; pandemic: 57.0% vs. 78.6%), present to their scheduled appointment (prepandemic: 52.7% vs. 73.7%; pandemic: 48.1% vs. 74.8%), and cancel vs. no-show (prepandemic: 30.8% vs. 68.2%, pandemic: 64.3% vs. 78.3%). On multivariable analysis, African American patients were less likely (odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.50) and telehealth users were more likely (odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.27) to present to their appointments vs. no-show or cancel when controlling for insurance type and timing relative to the onset of the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Telehealth implementation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic decreased the overall no-show rate, but this shift did not apply to African American patients. This analysis highlights disparities in insurance coverage, telehealth utilization, and presentation for an initial consultation in the African American population during the pandemic.

Geographic opportunities for assisted reproduction: a study of regional variations in access to fertility treatment in England

It is estimated that one in seven couples in the UK experience infertility, though just over half of those affected by it seek professional help. Previous studies pointed to potential socioeconomic barriers in accessing assisted reproduction; however, less is known about geographic accessibility to fertility treatment and the way it is associated with measures of deprivation. In this study, we used publicly available data on fertility clinics, combined with official statistics for 315 local authorities in England, to create a standardized measure of geographic accessibility to fertility services. In addition, using a negative binomial regression model, we estimated the link between socioeconomic measures at the local authority level and availability of fertility services. We found that geographic accessibility to assisted reproduction is significantly higher in the most advantaged local authorities in terms of average household income and level of deprivation. This may lead to reduced opportunities for realizing fertility aspirations among those suffering from infertility in more deprived areas. Taking into account both socioeconomic and geographic barriers to accessing fertility treatment can contribute to a better understanding of help-seeking patterns for infertility, likelihood of achieving a live birth and inform policy to equalise opportunities in access to infertility treatment.

Inequities in Medically Assisted Reproduction: a Scoping Review

Infertility has a high prevalence in the USA and health inequities play a large role in access to medically assisted reproduction (MAR). The aim of this study was to identify gaps in research pertaining to inequities in MAR and propose suggestions for future research directions. Searches were performed using MEDLINE and Ovid Embase. Articles that reported on MAR inequities, published between 2016 and 2021 in the USA, and written in English were included. The inequities investigated were adapted from the NIH-designated health disparities populations. Each article's inequity findings were extracted and reported, along with frequencies of inequities. Our sample included 66 studies. The majority of the studies investigated MAR outcomes by race/ethnicity and found that historically marginalized populations had poorer outcomes. LGBTQ + populations were less likely to use MAR or seek infertility care. Most studies found positive correlations with MAR use with income and education. The least commonly studied inequities in our sample were sex and/or gender and rural/under-resourced populations; findings showed that men and people from rural/under-resourced populations were less likely to access MAR. Studies that examined occupational status had varying findings. We suggest that future research be targeted toward: (1) standardizing and diversifying race/ethnicity reporting regarding MAR, (2) the use of community-based participatory research to increase data for LGBTQ + patients, and (3) increasing access to infertility care for men.

Geographic distribution of assisted reproductive technology clinics in the USA: a multilevel sociodemographic analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate whether sociodemographic characteristics of US Census tracts and counties and state-level infertility insurance policy are associated with the presence of assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics.

METHODS

Multilevel logistic regression analyses using publicly available reports of ART clinic locations (2014-2018) matched with sociodemographic data from the US Census Bureau and state infertility insurance policy information.

RESULTS

At the tract-level, multivariate multilevel logistic regression found significant associations with the likelihood of an ART clinic in a tract and the size of the tract population (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.063, SE = 0.018, p < .001), the tract median household income (aOR = 0.990, SE = 0.002, p < 0.001), and the percentages of the population who were Hispanic (aOR = 0.975, SE = 0.007, p < 0.001), women over 25 with a bachelor's degree or higher (aOR: 1.052, SE = 0.004, p < 0.001), and foreign-born (aOR: 1.037, SE = 0.009, p < .001). At the county-level, significant associations were found with the county median household income (aOR: 1.016, SE = 0.006, p < .01) and the percentage of the population that identified as Black (aOR = 1.013, SE = 0.006, p < .05) and Hispanic (aOR = 1.028, SE = 0.009, p < .05). Multivariate models showed no associations between tract clinic counts and state infertility policy.

CONCLUSION

There is mixed evidence that clinic concentration is associated with expected sociodemographics. In particular, physical proximity may not principally drive racial disparities in ART access. Furthermore, insurance mandates are not associated with the presence of an ART clinics in a tract, suggesting alternative policy levers may be needed to address differential access and utilization of ART services.

Access to Fertility Care in Geographically Underserved Populations, a Second Look

Infertility has a prevalence of up to 16% worldwide and is on the rise in developed nations, largely due to pursuing childbearing at advanced reproductive ages. Advances in assisted reproductive technology have benefitted socioeconomically advantaged patients disproportionately. High costs of fertility care are largely responsible for this disparity; however, patients in rural areas also face barriers in accessing both gynecology and reproductive endocrinology subspecialty care. Here, focusing on the USA, we discuss fertility care in geographically underserved areas and low-resource settings, and the impact on reproductive outcomes. Increased innovation to improve patient access to fertility care such as assisted reproductive technology is critical for ensuring equity. Remote monitoring is frequently performed by fertility centers, but partnership with local gynecologists has also been demonstrated to be an effective assisted reproductive technology monitoring method. Telehealth is now in mainstream use and the continued application to reduce geographic barriers to infertility patients is imperative. Partnership between local gynecologists and reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists may improve patient access to fertility care and provide the unique benefits of continuity and ongoing local social support.

COVID-19 - compliant - IVF: reorganized clinical practice taking into account the pandemic

PURPOSE

The need for protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic forced assisted reproduction centers to adopt new protocols in order to reduce the risk of infection for patients and staff. A COVID-19 Compliant IVF (in vitro fertilization) program based on the use of follitropin delta to induce ovarian stimulation and fixed protocol with GnRH (Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone) antagonists was applied to demonstrate the efficacy of this program in reducing the necessity of patients to be present within the clinic while maintaining the expected success rate.

METHODS

The program was applied to 100 patients (women aged between 20 and 40 years, at their first IVF cycle): pretreatment assessment was carried out via video conference and clinical documentations were sent by email. Ovarian stimulation was based on doses of Follitropin delta selected on the basis of body weight and serum AMH (Anti-Müllerian Hormone). The study population was then compared with historical controls to assess the percentage of patients receiving fresh embryo transfer. Finally, a questionnaire was proposed to assess patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The ovarian stimulation protocol with a fixed dose of follitropin delta led to an optimal ovarian response (8-14 oocytes) in 54% of the women included in the study. The rate of hyper response was 15% and was significantly lower that what reported in the control group (26.8%, p < .05). The good control of ovarian response to stimulation is the reason for the large percentage of cycles associated with fresh embryo transfer (84%, n 84/100). The rate of fresh embryo transfer was significantly higher that what reported for the control population (68.5%, p < .05). In 40 out of 84 patients, blastocysts were available for the fresh embryo transfer procedure. Eighty-five percent (89/100) of survey responders reported being extremely satisfied with the simplified approach to the IVF cycle because of reduced number of visits, easy management of working hours and reduction in travel costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of follitropin delta and fixed protocol with GnRH antagonist in COVID-19 - Compliant IVF program is associated to a low percentage of patients developing excessive ovarian response compared to conventional strategy and a very good level of patient satisfaction. Beyond the pandemic, the new approach to ovarian stimulation, modern technologies and telemedicine could play a key role in bridging the gap between different geographic areas and could offer advantages such as increased accessibility, cost saving and patient satisfaction.

We are here for you: infertility clinic communication during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

To study how SART-member fertility clinics communicated via clinic websites during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic following publication of ASRM COVID-19 Task Force recommendations.

Methods

SART-member fertility clinic websites were systematically surveyed for the presence of an REI-specific COVID-19 message (REI-CM) and analyzed for their adherence to ASRM guidance.

Results

Of the 381 active clinic websites, 249 (65.3%) had REI-specific COVID messaging. The presence of REI-CM was more common in private than in academic practices (73% vs 38%, p < 0.001) and with increasing practice volume: 38% of clinics with < 200 annual cycles vs 91% of clinics with > 1000 cycles (p < 0.001). Adherence to ASRM guidance was more common in academic than in private practices (54% vs 31%, p = 0.02). Additionally, 9% of REI-CM (n = 23) announced continued treatment regardless of a patient’s clinical urgency. This messaging was more common in groups doing > 1000 cycles a year (18%, p = 0.009). Clinics treating all-comers were less likely to cite ASRM than other clinics (41% vs 62%, p = 0.045). However, 75% (n = 14) cited COVID-19 guidance from WHO, CDC, and state and local governments.

Conclusions

Clinic response to ASRM recommendations during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic was heterogeneous. Although academic practices were more likely to follow ASRM guidance, there was a lower extent of patient-facing messaging among academic practices than private clinics. In event of further escalations of this and future pandemics, clinics can learn from experiences to provide clear messaging to patients.