Women's preferences concerning IVF treatment: a discrete choice experiment with particular focus on embryo transfer policy
- PMID: 35928049
- PMCID: PMC9345060
- DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac030
Women's preferences concerning IVF treatment: a discrete choice experiment with particular focus on embryo transfer policy
Abstract
Study question: What outcomes are important for women to decide on the day of embryo transfer (ET) in IVF?
Summary answer: The highest cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) per treatment was the most important treatment outcome for women undergoing an IVF treatment, regardless of the number of transfers needed until pregnancy and impact on quality of life.
What is known already: Cleavage stage (Day 3) and blastocyst stage (Day 5) ETs are common transfer policies in IVF. The choice for one or the other day of ET differs between clinics. From the literature, it remains unclear whether the day of transfer impacts the cLBR. Patient preferences for the day of ET have not been examined yet.
Study design size and duration: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was performed to investigate female patients' preferences and their values concerning various aspects of an IVF treatment, with a particular focus on ET policy. A multicenter DCE was conducted between May 2020 and June 2020 in which participants were asked to choose between different treatments. Each treatment was presented using hypothetical scenarios containing the following attributes: the probability of a healthy live birth per IVF treatment cycle, the number of embryos available for transfer (for fresh and frozen-thawed ET), the number of ETs until pregnancy and the impact of the treatment on the quality of life.
Participants/materials setting methods: Women (n = 445) were asked to participate in the DCE at the start of an IVF treatment cycle in 10 Dutch fertility clinics. Participating women received an online questionnaire. The attributes' relative importance was analyzed using logistic regression analyses.
Main results and the role of chance: A total of 164 women participated. The most important attribute chosen was the cLBR. The total number of embryos suitable for transfer also influenced women's treatment preferences. Neither the number of transfers needed until pregnancy, nor the impact on quality of life influenced the treatment preferences in the aggregated data. For women in the older age group (age ≥36 years) and the multipara subgroup, the impact on quality of life was more relevant. Naive patients (patients with no prior experience with IVF treatment) assigned less value to the number of ETs needed until pregnancy and assigned more value to the cLBR than the patients who had experienced IVF.
Limitations reasons for caution: An important limitation of a DCE study is that not all attributes can be included, which might be relevant for making choices. Patients might make other choices in real life as the DCE scenarios presented here are hypothetical and might not exactly represent their personal situation. We tried to avoid potential bias by selecting the attributes that mattered most to the patients obtained through patient focus groups. The final selection of attributes and the assigned levels were established using the input of an expert panel of professionals and by performing a pilot study to test the validity of our questionnaire. Furthermore, because we only included women in our study, we cannot draw any conclusions on preferences for partners.
Wider implications of the findings: The results of this study may help fertility patients, clinicians, researchers and policymakers to prioritize the most important attributes in the choice for the day of ET. The present study shows that cLBR per IVF treatment is the most important outcome for women. However, currently, there is insufficient information in the literature to conclude which day of transfer is more effective regarding the cLBR. Randomized controlled trials on the subject of Day 3 versus Day 5 ETs and cLBR are needed to allow evidence-based counseling.
Study funding/competing interests: This work received no specific funding and there are no conflicts of interest.
Trial registration number: N/A.
Keywords: IVF-ICSI outcome; assisted reproduction; counseling; embryo transfer; reproductive decision-making.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Cumulative live birth rates after one ART cycle including all subsequent frozen-thaw cycles in 1050 women: secondary outcome of an RCT comparing GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist protocols.Hum Reprod. 2017 Mar 1;32(3):556-567. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew358. Hum Reprod. 2017. PMID: 28130435 Clinical Trial.
-
Lifestyle intervention prior to IVF does not improve embryo utilization rate and cumulative live birth rate in women with obesity: a nested cohort study.Hum Reprod Open. 2021 Aug 7;2021(4):hoab032. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoab032. eCollection 2021. Hum Reprod Open. 2021. PMID: 34557597 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing couples' preferences for fresh or frozen embryo transfer: a discrete choice experiment.Hum Reprod. 2021 Oct 18;36(11):2891-2903. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deab207. Hum Reprod. 2021. PMID: 34550368
-
Guidelines for the number of embryos to transfer following in vitro fertilization No. 182, September 2006.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008 Aug;102(2):203-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.01.007. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008. PMID: 18773532 Review.
-
Higher probability of live-birth in high, but not normal, responders after first frozen-embryo transfer in a freeze-only cycle strategy compared to fresh-embryo transfer: a meta-analysis.Hum Reprod. 2019 Mar 1;34(3):491-505. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey388. Hum Reprod. 2019. PMID: 30689865
Cited by
-
Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review.Hum Reprod Update. 2024 May 2;30(3):341-354. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmae001. Hum Reprod Update. 2024. PMID: 38305635 Free PMC article.
-
Balancing choice and socioeconomic realities: analyzing behavioral and economic factors in social oocyte cryopreservation decisions.Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024 Dec 20;15:1467213. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1467213. eCollection 2024. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024. PMID: 39758347 Free PMC article.
-
The embryo stage at fresh ET does not affect the cumulative live birth rate in women with a thin endometrium: a retrospective matched-controlled cohort study.Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024 Dec 11;15:1448138. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1448138. eCollection 2024. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024. PMID: 39722813 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryo transfer on cumulative live births in women with good prognosis undergoing in vitro fertilization: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Nat Commun. 2024 Sep 5;15(1):7747. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-52008-y. Nat Commun. 2024. PMID: 39237545 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Assessment of patient preferences for assisted reproductive technology in China: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ Open. 2025 Feb 3;15(2):e090140. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-090140. BMJ Open. 2025. PMID: 39900416 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Barra F, Lucia La Rosa V, Vitale SG, Commodari E, Altieri M, Scala S, Ferrero S. Psychological status of infertile patients who had in vitro fertilization treatment interrupted or postponed due to COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2020;1–8. - PubMed
-
- Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J.. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2011;20:273–286. - PubMed
-
- Burton P, Gurrin L, Sly P.. Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses: an introduction to generalized estimating equations and multilevel mixed modeling. Statist Med 1998;17:1261–1291. - PubMed
-
- Cameron NJ, Bhattacharya S, McLernon DJ.. Cumulative live birth rates following blastocyst- versus cleavage stage embryo transfer in the first complete cycle of IVF: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2020;35:2365–2374. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials