Quality of life and associated factors among infertile women attending infertility clinic at Mnazi Mmoja Hospital, Zanzibar

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, it is estimated at least 50 million couples are affected by infertility with the prevalence of infertility being 16% in Tanzania. Psychological impact of infertility in patients negatively affects women's Quality of Life (QoL) defined as a person`s perception of where they are in life in terms of culture and value in the emotional, mind-body, relational, social, environment and tolerability of treatment aspects. Poor Quality of Life is related to increased treatment discontinuation. The aim of this study was to determine the Quality of Life and associated factors among infertile women attending infertility clinic at Mnazi Mmoja Hospital, Zanzibar.

METHODS

A hospital based cross-sectional study was conducted among 340 infertile women attending infertility clinic at Mnazi Mmoja Hospital, Zanzibar. Data was collected using FertiQoL tool. The factors associated with Quality of Life using FertiQoL tool in infertile women were estimated in a multivariable linear regression model at 95% confidence interval and 5% level of significance.

RESULTS

Quality of life of infertile women at Mnazi Mmoja infertility clinic was 70.6 ± 10.0 on a scale of 0 to 100. It increased significantly with increase in educational level (p = 0.009). Women with female individual causes on average had 5.07 (B=- 5.07, 95%CI: -7.78, -2.35) and women with individual and respective male partner causes of infertility had on average 4.95 (B= -4.95, 95% CI: -7.77, -2.12) respective decrease in the FertiQoL scores compared to those who had their male partner with problems as reason for infertility. There was an average 4.50 (B=-4.50, 95% CI: 2.30, 6.70) decrease in quality of life in women with secondary infertility compared to women with primary infertility. Every month increase in duration of infertility led to an average of 0.04 (B=-2.57, 95%CI: -0.07, -0.01) decrease in FertiQoL scores.

CONCLUSION

The overall quality of life in this population was positively associated with level of education but negatively affected with reason for infertility, type of infertility and duration of infertility.

Defining infertility: a qualitative interview study of patients and physicians

PURPOSE

To investigate if infertility patients and physicians apply a traditional biomedical model of disease in their conceptualisation of infertility, examine any contradictions and conflicts in conceptualisations, and examine areas of concordance and discordance between physicians and patients.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 infertility patients and 18 infertility physicians between September 2010 and April 2012. Interviews were analysed qualitatively to determine physician and patient conceptualisations of infertility, reactions to the definition of infertility as a disease, and potential benefits and concerns related to application of a disease label to the condition.

RESULTS

Most physicians (n = 14/18) and a minority of patients (n = 6/20) were supportive of defining infertility as a disease. Many of the patients who agreed with classifying infertility as a disease expressed that they had not personally defined it as such previously. Physicians (n = 14) and patients (n = 13) described potential benefits of a disease label, including increases in research funding, insurance coverage, and social acceptability. Some patients (n = 10) described potential stigma as a negative consequence. When describing appraisals of infertility, both physicians (n = 7) and patients (n = 8) invoked religious/spiritual concepts. The potential for religious/spiritual appraisal to contribute to stigmatising or de-stigmatising infertility was discussed.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contradict the assumption that infertility physicians and patients are fully supportive of defining infertility as a disease. While potential benefits of the disease label were recognised by both groups, caution against potential for stigmatisation and unsolicited invocation of religion/spirituality suggest a more holistic model may be appropriate.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

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.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Patient-centred infertility care among Arab women experiencing infertility: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The current study aims to define patient-centred infertility care (PCIC) from the perspective of Arab women with infertility.

DESIGN

Semistructured in-depth telephone interviews.

SETTING

Hospitals providing infertility care, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

PARTICIPANTS

Arab women who received infertility treatment during the 6 months preceding the interview at any hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Interviews were conducted with Arab women experiencing infertility from January 2017 to December 2018. A purposive sample of 14 women were included in the final analysis with maximum variation.

RESULTS

Participants highlighted nine important PCIC dimensions. Of these, four were agreed on by all participants: accessibility, minimising cost, information and education, and staff attitudes and communication. The remaining five dimensions were staff competence, physical comfort, privacy, psychological and emotional support, and continuity and coordination of care. The concept of PCIC was related to three major contributors: participants' demographics, patient experience with infertility care and health-seeking behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provided nine PCIC dimensions and items, which can guide efforts to improve the quality of infertility care in Arab countries in two ways: first, by raising infertility care providers' awareness of their patients' needs, and second, by developing a validated tool based on the dimensions for measuring PCIC from Arab patients' perspective. Clear differences between the Arab and the European PCIC model were found. Our findings concluded that women continued to exhibit basic unmet needs.

Patient-centered care in Israeli IVF units: divergent perceptions of patients and providers

Background

Patient-centered care is particularly important for patients undergoing fertility treatment because of their emotional involvement and their constant contact with providers. To the best of our knowledge, to date, there have been no rigorous studies of the discrepancies between the patients’ perceptions of the care they received and the providers’ perceptions of the care that they provided, in specific dimensions and elements of patient-centered care.

Objective

To compare provider and patient perceptions of the extent to which care in Israeli IVF units is patient-centered.

Methods

A previously validated survey instrument was used to assess the patient and provider perceptions of ten dimensions of patient-centered care: accessibility of providers, provision of information and of explanations, communication skills of providers, patient involvement in the treatment, respect for patient values and needs, continuity and transition in treatment, professional competence, care organization, physical comfort, and emotional support. The patient survey and the provider survey were conducted in 2016–2017; both surveys were carried out in 8 of 25 hospital-based IVF units in Israel. Seventy-six providers and 524 patients (response rate 79%) participated in the surveys.

Findings

The perceptions of patients and providers were similar regarding seven of the ten dimensions of patient-centered care, although there were some differences in patient vs. provider scores by unit. There were three dimensions with substantial provider-patient score differences: Moderate-sized gaps were found relative to the provision of information and explanations (1.96 vs. 2.38, on a 0–3 scale) and respect for patient values and needs (1.92 vs. 2.47). A large gap was observed relative to emotional support (0.96 vs. 2.54).

Conclusions

Providers appear to underestimate the needs of fertility treatment patients for information, respect, and emotional support. The observed differences between what patients feel about their care and what providers assume they provide, especially regarding emotional support, indicates a need for ongoing, specific feedback to providers as to the patient-centeredness of the care they provide. The particularly large patient – provider gap relative to the provision of emotional support highlights the importance of increasing the attention paid to the psychological impact of fertility treatment and of giving patients an opportunity to consult a counselor who is familiar with problems associated with fertility treatments.

Policy recommendations

Efforts to improve the patient-centeredness in FT should begin by establishing a national ongoing feedback mechanism, involving all 25 IVF units operating in Israel working in collaboration with the Ministry of Health. The findings from this joint effort should be shared with the public. In addition, we recommended appointing one professional in each IVF unit to be in charge of promoting improvements in the patient-centered care for that unit. Assigning a mental health professional (psychologist or social worker) to each and every IVF unit is also of crucial importance.

Towards more patient-centred endometriosis care: a cross-sectional survey using the ENDOCARE questionnaire

STUDY QUESTION

What is the performance of the patient-centredness of endometriosis care in a secondary and a tertiary care setting and how can it be improved?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Overall, patient-centredness was comparable in the two endometriosis care centres, but differed regarding ‘physical comfort’ and ‘continuity and transition’; both centres can learn how to improve several of their targets from the other’s strengths.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The ENDOCARE questionnaire (ECQ) is a validated questionnaire for assessing the important quality dimension ‘patient-centredness’. Patient-centredness is associated with quality of life, although this should be explored further by larger-scale studies.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A cross-sectional survey, relying on the ECQ, was performed (during 2015 and 2016) among 407 women with surgically diagnosed endometriosis.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

This study was conducted in a secondary and a tertiary care centre in the Netherlands. A total of 209 Dutch-speaking women who had endometriosis surgery (2013–2014), completed the ECQ after a postal invitation and, if needed, postal reminders. The assessed outcomes were: overall patient-centredness, the patient-centredness for each of its 10 dimensions, and the patient-centred strengths and targets for improvement. Case-mix adjusted patient-centredness scores (PCS) were compared and strengths and targets for improvement were identified with a matrix modelling importance against experience. The need to improve the targets was quantified with quality impact indices.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

No difference was demonstrated between the overall PCS of the secondary and tertiary centres (respectively: 4.8 and 4.5; P = 0.15). No difference was found in PCS per dimension between the two clinics except for the secondary care centre performing better regarding ‘physical comfort’ (respectively: 4.5 and 3.0; P = 0.01) and ‘continuity and transition’ (respectively: 6.0 and 4.2; P = 0.01). The two centres had nine targets for improvement in common. The secondary and tertiary centres, respectively, had five and seven additional centre-specific targets for improvement. Cross-centre learning is encouraged as 9 out the 12 additional centre-specific targets were strengths in the other centre. The main improvement targets were being able to contact the centre in case of emergency (both centres), the involvement of a significant other (secondary centre), diagnostic delay (secondary centre), personal follow-up (tertiary centre) and disclosing the level of competence of healthcare providers (tertiary centre).

LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION

Responders did not differ from non-responders in their stage of endometriosis, educational level, rating of endometriosis care and degree to which their complaints are suppressed. Endometriosis is a chronic condition and patient-centredness might be experienced differently at other points of the endometriosis care trajectory.

WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS

The ECQ is a useful tool to assess patient-centredness in both secondary and tertiary care centres. Further research should focus on how to improve endometriosis care.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was used. V.M. and C.B.L. report grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication.

Independent and Web-Based Advice for Infertile Patients Using Fertility Consult: Pilot Study

Background

Patient-centered care—that is, care tailored to personal wishes and needs of patients—has become increasingly important. It is especially relevant in health care areas where patients suffer from a high burden of disease, such as fertility care. At present, both diagnosis and treatment for infertile couples is provided at a single hospital. As a consequence, patients are not likely to receive optimal, independent advice regarding their fertility problems. Internet-based, independent advice could be feasible for large groups of patients because it is not limited by travel distance and overhead costs.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of both patients and professionals with an online platform using video consultations for patients with infertility seeking independent advice for their fertility problem.

Methods

This pilot study evaluated an online platform, Fertility Consult, where patients with infertility can get independent advice by a gynecologist through a video consultation, thus eliminating the need of meeting the doctor physically. Semistructured interviews were performed with 2 gynecologists and the chairman of the Dutch patients association. This information was used for a patients’ questionnaire about their first experiences with Fertility Consult, including questions about the level of patient-centeredness and shared decision making, using the Patient-Centered Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility) and the CollaboRATE questionnaire, respectively.

Results

Of the first 27 patients enrolled at Fertility Consult, 22 responded (82%). Most patients (82%) visited Fertility Consult for a second opinion, seeking more personal attention and independent advice. The mean level of patient-centeredness on the PCQ-Infertility questionnaire was 2.78 (SD 0.58) on a scale of 0 to 3. For the CollaboRATE questionnaire (scale 0-9), patients provided a median score of 8.0 (range 7-9) on all 3 questions about shared decision making.

Conclusions

Patients were satisfied with independent, well-prepared, Web-based advice; health care professionals felt they were able to provide patients with proper advice in a manner befitting patients’ needs, without any loss of quality. Future studies should focus more on the separation of advice and treatment and on Web-based consultations compared with face-to-face consultations to ascertain the possibility of increased patient involvement in the process to improve the level of patient-centered care.

Beyond the Quality Illusion: The Learning Era

By highlighting the intangible, personal, contextual, and illusory nature of "quality," the authors reconceptualize quality improvement as a pluralistic and moral journey. They imagine a new era of quality improvement in which patients and health care providers work together to understand and achieve quality. The authors recommend, for the path forward, a "travel kit" of 10 crucial elements-compassion, deliberation, flexible goals, ownership, the engagement of patients, the inclusion of payers, the involvement of learners, feedback loops, the fostering of learning, and the application of different sources of knowledge-to reframe quality improvement in a new era of learning.

Burden of care is the primary reason why insured women terminate in vitro fertilization treatment

OBJECTIVE

To study the reason(s) why insured patients discontinue in vitro fertilization (IVF) before achieving a live birth.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Private academically affiliated infertility center.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 893 insured women who had completed one IVF cycle but did not return for treatment for at least 1 year and who had not achieved a live birth were identified; 312 eligible women completed the survey.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Reasons for treatment termination.

RESULT(S)

Two-thirds of the participants (65.2%) did not seek care elsewhere and discontinued treatment. When asked why they discontinued treatment, these women indicated that further treatment was too stressful (40.2%), they could not afford out-of-pocket costs (25.1%), they had lost insurance coverage (24.6%), or they had conceived spontaneously (24.1%). Among those citing stress as a reason for discontinuing treatment (n = 80), the top sources of stress included already having given IVF their best chance (65.0%), feeling too stressed to continue (47.5%), and infertility taking too much of a toll on their relationship (36.3%). When participants were asked what could have made their experience better, the most common suggestions were evening/weekend office hours (47.4%) and easy access to a mental health professional (39.4%). Of the 34.8% of women who sought care elsewhere, the most common reason given was wanting a second opinion (55.7%).

CONCLUSION(S)

Psychologic burden was the most common reason why insured patients reported discontinuing IVF treatment. Stress reduction strategies are desired by patients and could affect the decision to terminate treatment.

Measuring patient-centredness in publicly funded fertility care: A New Zealand validation and international comparison of the Patient-Centred Questionnaire-Infertility

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Centred Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility) has proven to be a reliable instrument to assess the extent of patient-centredness of fertility care in European countries.

AIMS

To validate the PCQ-Infertility in New Zealand (NZ) and to compare results with international experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional 46-item questionnaire study among 409 women undergoing publicly funded fertility care (intrauterine insemination or in vitro fertilisation / intracytoplasmic sperm injection) in three fertility clinics in the Northern Auckland region was performed between October 2015 and September 2016. Inclusion of eligible participants was both retro- and prospective. The questionnaire was distributed by email link and women were asked to complete it with their partner. Internal consistency and construct validity were determined and correction for case mix was performed. Mean dimension scores, adjusted for 'current pregnancy', 'educational level' and 'treatment type', were calculated for each dimension of the PCQ-Infertility. NZ results were compared with PCQ-Infertility results from five countries.

RESULTS

Of 409 invited women, 255 questionnaires were submitted (response rate 62%), of which 216 (53%) were analysable. The dimension 'Care organization' had poor internal consistency, but overall the questionnaire had high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.93). Construct validity was also good. International comparison showed NZ to have the second highest overall score. In New Zealand, the lowest scoring domain was 'Continuity and transition'.

CONCLUSIONS

The NZ version of the PCQ-infertility proved a valid instrument for the assessment of patient-centredness of publicly funded fertility care. Future research should focus on international inequities in patient-centred fertility care and use of the tool for quality improvement. Local use of the PCQ-Infertility is encouraged.

The design of behavioural interventions labelled as patient-mediated: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Patient-mediated interventions (PMIs) directed at patients and/or physicians improve patient or provider behaviour and patient outcomes. However, what constitutes a PMI is not clear. This study described interventions explicitly labelled as "patient-mediated" in primary research.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine, PsychINFO, HealthSTAR, Social Work Abstracts, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched from inception on 1 January 2017 for English language studies that developed or evaluated behavioural interventions referred to as "patient-mediated" or "patient mediated" in the full text. Screening and data extraction were independently duplicated. Data were extracted and summarized on study and intervention characteristics. Interventions were categorized as 1 of 4 PMI pathways.

RESULTS

Eight studies (4 randomized controlled trials, 1 observational study and 3 qualitative studies) were included. No studies explicitly defined PMI, and few PMIs were described in terms of content and format. Although 3 studies employed physician interventions, only patient interventions were considered PMIs. One study achieved positive improvement in patient behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Research is needed to generate consensus on the PMI concept, employ theory when designing or evaluating PMIs, establish the effectiveness of different types of PMIs, and understand when and how to employ PMIs alone or combined with other interventions.

The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

With the growing movement to engage patients in research, questions are being asked about who is engaging patients and how they are being engaged. Internationally, research groups are supporting and funding patient-oriented research studies that engage patients in the identification of research priorities and the design, conduct and uptake of research. As we move forward, we need to know what meaningful patient engagement looks like, how it benefits research and clinical practice, and what are the barriers to patient engagement?We conducted a review of the published literature looking for trials that report engaging patients in the research. We included both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials. We looked at these trials for important study characteristics, including how patients were engaged, to better understand the practices used in trials. Importantly, we also discuss the number of trials reporting patient engagement practices relative to all published trials. We found that very few trials report any patient engagement activities even though it is widely supported by many major funding organizations. The findings of our work will advance patient-oriented research by showing how patients can be engaged and by stressing that patient engagement practices need to be better reported.

BACKGROUND

Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is research informed by patients and is centred on what is of importance to them. A fundamental component of POR is that patients are included as an integral part of the research process from conception to dissemination and implementation, and by extension, across the research continuum from basic research to pragmatic trials [J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1:181-94, JAMA 2012, 307:1587-8]. Since POR's inception, questions have been raised as to how best to achieve this goal.We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials that report engaging patients in their research. Our main goal was to describe the characteristics of published trials engaging patients in research, and to identify the extent of patient engagement activities reported in these trials.

METHODS

The MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Cochrane Methodology Registry, and Pubmed were searched from May 2011 to June 16th, 2016. Title, abstract and full text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included trials by one reviewer and verified by a second. All trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research were included.

RESULTS

Of the 9490 citations retrieved, 2777 were reviewed at full text, of which 23 trials were included. Out of the 23 trials, 17 were randomized control trials, and six were non-randomized comparative trials. The majority of these trials (83%, 19/23) originated in the United States and United Kingdom. The trials engaged a range of 2-24 patients/ community representatives per study. Engagement of children and minorities occurred in 13% (3/23) and 26% (6/23) of trials; respectively. Engagement was identified in the development of the research question, the selection of study outcomes, and the dissemination and implementation of results.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of patient engagement in patient-oriented interventional research is very poor with 23 trials reporting activities engaging patients. Research dedicated to determining the best practice for meaningful engagement is still needed, but adequate reporting measures also need to be defined.