Communication of Diagnosis of Infertility: A Systematic Review

The impact of an adapted SPIKES protocol vs routine care in the delivery of bad news to IVF patients: an exploratory pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Determine if the SPIKES method was associated with less distress and more compassion than current modes of delivering negative pregnancy test results to patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.

METHODS

Twenty-seven nurses from two centers were randomized to use the modified SPIKES script or continue their standard of care; 136 patients with a negative hCG following embryo transfer were included. SPIKES nurses received 1 h of training by a study psychologist; nurses in the control group were instructed to deliver the news as done previously. Patients who underwent embryo transfer and received a call by a participating nurse with a negative test result received an email invitation on the following day.

RESULTS

Control patients reported significantly less distress than SPIKES patients; 33% of SPIKES patients reported that they had felt "extremely sad," compared to 15.2% of the control patients (p = 0.01). Perceived compassion did not differ between the groups (all p ≥ 0.22).

CONCLUSION

Patients who received a negative pregnancy test result from the nurses who received a brief training and a script on how to deliver bad news via the modified SPIKES protocol reported significantly more distress than patients receiving negative results from nurses utilizing their standard of care. It is unclear whether a modified SPIKES method to deliver negative pregnancy test results will benefit patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials.gov NCT04917445.

What is bad news in fertility care? A qualitative analysis of staff and patients' accounts of bad and challenging news in fertility care

STUDY QUESTION

What do fertility staff and patients think is bad news in fertility care?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Staff and patients agree bad news is any news that makes patients less likely to achieve parenthood spontaneously or access and do successful treatment, but their appraisals of how bad the news is are differently influenced by specific news features and the context of its delivery.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Bad news is common in fertility care, but staff feel unprepared to share it and four in 10 patients react to it with unanticipated emotional or physical reactions. Research has paid much attention to how bad news should be shared, but considerably less to what news is perceived as bad, despite the fact this may dictate elements of its delivery.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Two cross-sectional, online, mixed-method surveys (active 7 January-16 July 2022) were distributed to fertility staff and patients across the UK and Europe.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Staff inclusion criteria were being a healthcare professional working in fertility care and having experience of sharing bad news at least once a month. Patients' inclusion criteria were being adults and having had a conversation in which staff shared or explained bad news concerning their fertility care within the last 2 months. Surveys were created in English using Qualtrics, reviewed by patients and healthcare professionals, and distributed via social media, Prolific, fertility organizations, and scientific societies. Patients were asked, regarding the last time bad news were shared with them, 'What was the bad news?' and 'What other news would you consider bad news in fertility care?'. Staff were asked to 'List the three most challenging topics of bad news you share with your patients'. Staff and patient data were separately thematically analysed to produce basic codes, organized into sub-themes and themes. Themes emerging from patients' and staff data were compared and synthesized into meta themes.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Three hundred thirty-four staff accessed the survey, 286 consented, and 217 completed (65% completion rate). Three hundred forty-four patients accessed the survey, 304 consented, and 222 completed (64% completion rate). Eighty-five percent of participants were women, 62% resided in Europe, and 59% were in private care. Average staff age was 45.2 (SD = 12.0), 44% were embryologists or lab technicians, 40% were clinicians (doctors, consultants, or physicians), and 8% nurses or midwifes. Average patient age was 32.2 (SD = 6.4) and 54% had children. Staff answers originated 100 codes, 19 sub-themes and six themes. Patients' answers produced 196 codes, 34 sub-themes, and 7 themes. Staff and patient themes were integrated into three meta-themes reflecting main topics of bad news. These were Diagnosis and negative treatment events and outcomes, Inability to do (more) treatment, and Care and patient factors disrupting communication. Staff and patients agreed that some news features (uncertain, disruptive, definitive) made news more challenging but disagreed in relation to other features (e.g. unexpected/expected). Patient factors made bad news more challenging to staff (e.g. difficult emotions) and care factors made bad news more challenging to patients (e.g. disorganized care).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Participants were self-selected, and most were women from private European clinics. Questions differed for staff and patients, focused on subjective perceptions of news, and did not measure news impact.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The badness of fertility news is not only a product of the extent to which the news compromises parenthood goals but also of its features (timing, nature, number) and the context in which the news is delivered. Guidance on sharing bad news in fertility care needs to go beyond easing the process for patients to also consider staff experiences. Guidance may need to be tailored to news features and context.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Cardiff University funded the research. S.G., J.B., O'.H., and A.D. report funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) to develop fertiShare: a sharing bad news eLearning course for fertility care. fertiShare will be distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). No other conflicts are reported in relation to this work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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?

SUMMARY ANSWER

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.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Healthcare practitioners' experiences of breaking bad news: A critical interpretative meta synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of healthcare practitioners' experiences of breaking bad news.

METHOD

Interpretative meta synthesis of 14 qualitative papers identified through a systematic search. Data were extracted and constructs elicited via reciprocal translational analysis.

RESULTS

Findings comprised four inter-connected themes: (1) Discomfort, particularly difficult emotional and physical responses to breaking bad news; (2) Relational distress, connected to attachment and identification with patients; (3) Inadequate clinician, indicating the fear and rumination about the possibility of getting it wrong and the subsequent self-blame; and (4) Only human, highlighting a culture of invulnerability where practitioner self-care is deprioritised.

CONCLUSIONS

Breaking bad news provokes significant distress for practitioners, particularly where they experience strong attachment to or identification with a patient. Breaking bad news was understood as an isolating experience and staff's non-disclosure of difficulties appeared to sustain a culture of invulnerability in which admission of distress was not encouraged.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Given the adverse impacts and potential for practitioner burnout, organisations should acknowledge ramifications and offer time for staff to process the delivery of bad news, promote a culture of collective care and provide space for reflective practice.

Feasibility and acceptability of psychosocial care for unsuccessful fertility treatment

INTRODUCTION

Many people undergo fertility treatment to have biological children, but around four in ten patients complete all treatment cycles without having the children they desire. This triggers intense grief from which patients report taking on average 2 years to recover. Fertility guidelines and regulators stress the need to support patients through this process, but there is a scarcity of evaluated interventions to this end and evidence about when and how to offer care is lacking. This study explored patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences of and views about provision of psychosocial care (to patients facing unsuccessful fertility treatment, i.e., care provided by a mental health professional to address the emotional, cognitive, behavioural, relational and social needs that patients have at this stage of treatment).

METHODS

Five qualitative online focus groups were conducted with Portuguese participants: three with patients waiting to initiate or undergoing their last cycle of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection or having completed it within the last 2 months without achieving a pregnancy and two with HCPs working at fertility clinics. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and data were analysed with Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients and nine HCPs participated. Analysis resulted in 1293 codes, systematically organized into 13 categories, 4 themes and 1 metatheme. The latter showed high consensus about the need for psychosocial care for unsuccessful treatment, but perceived challenges in its implementation. Themes reflected (1) consensual demand for psychosocial care at all stages of treatment but particularly at the end, (2) high perceived acceptability of integrating preventive care initiated during treatment with early psychosocial care only for those patients who experience unsuccessful treatment, (3) perceived challenges of implementing psychosocial care for unsuccessful treatment at clinics and (4) suggestions to promote its acceptability and feasibility.

CONCLUSION

Patients and HCPs perceive that clinics should improve care provision across the whole treatment pathway and in particular for unsuccessful fertility treatment. Suggestions were made to inform future research focusing on the development and evaluation of psychosocial interventions to this end.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and HCPs participated in the focus groups. Two HCPs also revised the manuscript.

Global Research Trends on Infertility and Psychology From the Past Two Decades: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the global scientific output of research on infertility and psychology; explore the current status and trends in this field through the cooperation of authors, countries, and institutions; shed light on the direction of clinical infertility research in the future, and provide inspiration for targeted diagnosis and treatment of infertility.

Methods

Research publications on infertility and psychology from the past two decades were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Bibliometric analyses were performed using VOSviewer software and the bibliometrix R package. Network maps were generated to evaluate the collaborations between different authors, countries, institutions, and keywords.

Results

A total of 151 articles related to the study of infertility and psychology were identified. We observed a gradual increase in the number of publications from 2001 to 2021, and the trend has been relatively stable in the past eight years. Human Reproduction (England), as the leading journal publishing the most papers (29 articles), was cited in the most journals (1208 times). Boivin J was the most prolific author (16 articles), with the largest number of citations (890 times) and the highest h-index (14) during the past decades. Boivin J was also the leader with the highest publication frequency and more active cooperation with other top authors. The United Kingdom (34 papers) and Cardiff University (25 articles) contributed the most publications and were the leading contributors in this field. Active cooperation between countries and between institutions was observed, and analyses of articles and references were also shown. The main hot topics included matters related to women (39 times), in-vitro salt (31 times), infertility (30 times), couples (25 times), and impact (24 times).

Conclusion

Our study results provide a comprehensive overview of the development of scientific literature, allowing relevant authors and research teams to recognize the current research status in this field. At the same time, infertility and psychology may soon become hotspots and should be closely monitored.