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 and ethnic differences in self-reported satisfaction with fertility clinics and doctors.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if differences in self-reported satisfaction with fertility clinics and doctors differ by race/ethnicity. STUDY DESIGN: We used cross-sectional survey data from FertilityIQ online questionnaires completed by patients receiving US. fertility care from July 2015 to December 2020. Univariate and multivariate logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to assess association of race/ethnicity on patient-reported clinic and physician satisfaction. RESULTS: Our total sample size included 21,472 unique survey responses (15,986 Caucasian, 1856 Black, 1780 LatinX, 771 East Asian, 619 South Asian, 273 Middle Eastern, 187 Native American self-reported). When adjusting for potential confounders (demographic and patient satisfaction), we found that Black patients rated their doctors more highly (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.62 p = 0.022 logistic and Coefficient 0.082, 95% CI 0.013-0.15 p = 0.02 linear), while other ethnic groups did not show significant differences compared to Caucasian patients. East Asians had borderline lower satisfaction with clinic satisfaction in logistic regression (OR 0.74 95% CI 0.55-1.00 p = 0.05), while significant differences were not found for other ethnic groups for clinic satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, some but not all minority groups differed in their self-reported perception of satisfaction with fertility clinic and doctors compared to Caucasian patients. Cultural differences towards surveys may contribute to some of these findings, and satisfaction by racial/ethnic group may also be modified by results of care.

Patients' views of delayed fertility care during the COVID-19 pandemic as a conception catastrophe: the experience of U.S. FertilityIQ users.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of psychological reactions to delays in fertility treatment have often utilized single clinic samples during the time that fertility treatments were paused. We, therefore, assessed emotional reactions to treatment cancelations due to COVID-19 in infertility patients across the United States after treatments had begun to resume. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey emailed on 27 May 2020 and closed on 30 June 2020, to 53,600 FertilityIQ.com website users inquiring about their experience since the COVID-19 pandemic. A subset of FertilityIQ users (n = 13,490) opened the survey invitation and 1806 respondents participated in the survey (13.4% response rate). RESULTS: The majority of respondents (female, 67.4%; male, 61.7%) were 31-40 years old; most were planning to start treatment immediately (women, 42.6%; men, 44.7%) or were undergoing treatment (women, 34.9%; men, 29.8%) at the time of treatment cancelation. Patients (women, 21.1%; men 19.1%) or clinics (women, 57.7%; men, 40.4%) canceled treatment. Most clinics had resumed treatment at the time of the study (women, 90.0%; men, 73.7%). Cancelation resulted in sadness (women, 83.9%; men 86.7%) and anger (women, 45.4%; men, 36.7%); greater than half of the participants whose treatment was canceled (women: 66.8%, n = 630; men: 73.7%, n = 14) agreed with cancelations. Greater than 70% of respondents were at least somewhat concerned about reproductive chances (women, 84.7%; men, 72.4%) and exclusion of partners (women, 73.3%; men, 72.4%). Distress/concern was associated with clinic cancelation, disagreement with delays, age, diagnosis, and concern about delays and pregnancy chances (p <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents were distressed/concerned about the effect of the pandemic on their fertility. Distress was highest in women with a poorer fertility prognosis, no control over treatment cancelation, and high concern about the effect of treatment delay on pregnancy chances. Emotional support, education regarding treatment delay and fertility, and efforts where possible, to include patients in decisions to delay treatment are warranted in future treatment delays.