Is guided, targeted information about the risks of twin pregnancy able to increase the acceptance of single embryo transfer among IVF couples? A prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether receiving information about twin pregnancy in the form of oral presentation given by a physician could affect the acceptance of single embryo transfer (SET) by couples undergoing IVF. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective interventional study. SETTING: University hospital IVF unit. PATIENTS: One hundred and forty patients (70 couples) undergoing IVF. INTERVENTIONS: A questionnaire to measure patients' emotions about twin pregnancy was administered to IVF patients just before and immediately after attending a slide presentation in which the risks of twin pregnancy were explained. Patients scored (1 to 6) ten adjectives linked either to positive or negative emotions; scores before and after presentation were compared. The patients' preference between double embryo transfer (DET) and SET was also registered before and after the presentation. RESULTS: The presentation about twin pregnancy caused a significant (p < 0.001) shift of the score distribution toward lower values for positive adjectives referred to twin pregnancy and higher values for negative adjectives. Information impacted similarly on women and men. Despite the relevant change in the emotional attitude, after presentation, 45.7% of women and 48.6% of men were still favorable to DET, whereas 24.3% of women and 37.1% of men preferred SET. CONCLUSIONS: Oral information on the risks of twin pregnancy can affect the emotional attitude of patients toward twin pregnancy, but the wish of getting pregnant after fresh embryo transfer overcomes all rational consideration, and the majority of patients still prefer DET.

Single or double embryo transfer? Decision-making process in patients participating in an oocyte donation program.

In IVF/ICSI programs, after receiving the information about the success results of single embryo transfer (SET) vs double embryo transfer (DET) and the risks of multiple pregnancy, a significant number of patients opt for SET. Up to date, no comparable studies have been published in oocyte recipients. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the counseling provided to oocyte recipients influence their decision on the number of embryos to be transferred. Fifty-five recipients expressed their preference and the relevance for the decision-making process that they attribute to certain factors through an anonymous questionnaire completed pre and post-counseling. Before counseling, 32 out of 55 recipients preferred DET, 13 preferred SET and 10 were undecided. From the 32 recipients who preferred DET, 16 (50%) maintained their preference after counseling, 13 (40.6%) changed their decision to SET and 3 (9.4%) changed to undecided (McNemar's test: p < .05). After counseling, the patients attached less importance to the probability of pregnancy and more importance to maternal and perinatal risks (p < .05). We conclude that after counseling, a significant number of recipients changed their preferences from DET to SET.

Refuting a misguided campaign against the goal of single-embryo transfer and singleton birth in assisted reproduction.

Much recent progress has been made by assisted reproductive technology (ART) professionals toward minimizing the incidence of multiple pregnancy following ART treatment. While a healthy singleton birth is widely considered to be the ideal outcome of such treatment, a vocal minority continues a campaign to advocate the benefits of multiple embryo transfer as treatment and twin pregnancy as outcome for most ART patients. Proponents of twinning argue four points: that patients prefer twins, that multiple embryo transfer maximizes success rates, that the costs per infant are lower with twins and that one twin pregnancy and birth is associated with no higher risk than two consecutive singleton pregnancies and births. We find fault with the reasoning and data behind each of these tenets. First, we respect the principle of patient autonomy to choose the number of embryos for transfer but counter that it has been shown that better patient education reduces their desire for twins. In addition, reasonable and evidentially supported limits may be placed on autonomy in exchange for public or private insurance coverage for ART treatment, and counterbalancing ethical principles to autonomy exist, especially beneficence (doing good) and non-maleficence (doing no harm). Second, comparisons between success rates following single-embryo transfer (SET) and double-embryo transfers favor double-embryo transfers only when embryo utilization is not comparable; cumulative pregnancy and birth rates that take into account utilization of cryopreserved embryos (and the additional cryopreserved embryo available with single fresh embryo transfer) consistently demonstrate no advantage to double-embryo transfer. Third, while comparisons of costs are system dependent and not easy to assess, several independent studies all suggest that short-term costs per child (through the neonatal period alone) are lower with transfers of one rather than two embryos. And, finally, abundant evidence conclusively demonstrates that the risks to both mother and especially to children are substantially greater with one twin birth compared with two singleton births. Thus, the arguments used by some to promote multiple embryo transfer and twinning are not supported by the facts. They should not detract from efforts to further promote SET and thus reduce ART-associated multiple pregnancy and its inherent risks.

Evaluation of an effective multifaceted implementation strategy for elective single-embryo transfer after in vitro fertilization.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the relationship between the rate of elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) and couples' exposure to different elements of a multifaceted implementation strategy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Additional elements in a multifaceted implementation strategy do not result in an increased eSET rate. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A multifaceted eSET implementation strategy with four different elements is effective in increasing the eSET rate by 11%. It is unclear whether every strategy element contributes equally to the strategy's effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN AND SIZE: An observational study was performed among 222 subfertile couples included in a previously performed randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS, SETTINGS AND METHODS: Of the 222 subfertile couples included, 109 couples received the implementation strategy and 113 couples received standard IVF care. A multivariate regression analysis assessed the effectiveness of four different strategy elements on the decision about the number embryos to be transferred. Questionnaires evaluated the experiences of couples with the different elements. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the couples who received the implementation strategy, almost 50% (52/109) were exposed to all the four elements of the strategy. The remaining 57 couples who received two or three elements of the strategy could be divided into two further classes of exposure. Our analysis demonstrated that additional elements do not result in an increased eSET rate. In addition to the physician's advice, couples rated a decision aid and a counselling session as more important for their decision to transfer one or two embryos, compared with a phone call and a reimbursement offer (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: The differences in eSET rate between exposure groups failed to reach significance, probably because of the small numbers of couples in each exposure group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Adding more elements to an implementation strategy does not always result in an increased effectiveness, which is in concordance with recent literature. This in-depth evaluation of a multifaceted intervention strategy could therefore help to modify strategies, by making them more effective and less expensive.

Elective single-embryo transfer: persuasive communication strategies can affect choice in a young British population.

This study tested the effectiveness of the framing effect and fear appeals to inform young people about the risks of multiple births and the option of selecting elective single-embryo transfer (eSET). A non-patient student sample (age (mean±SD) 23±5.5 years; n=321) were randomly allocated to one of seven groups: (1) framing effect: (1a) gain and (1b) loss frame; (2) fear appeal: (2a) high, (2b) medium and (2c) low fear; or (3) a control group: (3a) education and (3b) non-education. The primary outcome measure was the Attitudes towards Single Embryo Transfer questionnaire, before exposure to the messages (time 1) and immediately afterwards (time 2). Results revealed participants in the high fear, medium fear and gain condition demonstrated the most positive and significant differences (P<0.001 to P<0.05) in their knowledge, hypothetical intentions and modest changes in attitudes towards eSET than the low fear, loss frame and education and non-education messages. The results demonstrate that the use of complex persuasive communication techniques on a student population to promote immediate and hypothetical eSET preferences is more successful at promoting eSET than merely reporting educational content. Future research should investigate its application in a clinical population. A multiple pregnancy is a health risk to both infant and mother following IVF treatment. The aims of this study were to test the effectiveness of two persuasive communication techniques (the framing effect and fear appeals) to inform young people about the risks of multiple births and the hypothetical option of selecting elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) (i.e., only one embryo is transferred to the uterus using IVF treatment). A total of 321 non-patient student sample (mean age 23) were randomly allocated to read a message from one of seven groups: (1) framing effect: (1a) gain and (1b) loss frame; (2) fear appeal: (2a) high, (2b) medium and (2c) low fear; or (3) a control group: education (3a) and (3b) non-education. Participants completed the Attitudes towards Single Embryo Transfer questionnaire, before exposure to the messages (time 1) and immediately afterwards (time 2). Results revealed that participants in the high fear, medium fear and gain condition demonstrated the most positive and significant differences in their knowledge, hypothetical intentions and modest changes in attitudes towards eSET than the low fear, loss frame and education and non-education messages. This study recommends that health promotion based on the framing effect and fear appeals should be tested in clinical (patient) samples in the future.

Comparing patients' and clinicians' perceptions of elective single embryo transfer using the attitudes to a twin IVF pregnancy scale (ATIPS).

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated a questionnaire originally developed for use with health professionals to explore and compare patients' and clinicians' perceptions of elective single embryo transfer and twin births. METHODS: IVF clinicians and patients attending an independent Fertility clinic were surveyed using the Attitudes to a twin birth scale (ATIPS) comprising two subscales: attitudes to twins (A-Twin) and attitudes to elective single embryo transfer (A-SET). After refinement total sample scores showed both subscales were reliable with Cronbach's alpha >0.8 and item-total correlations >0.35. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 100 female IVF patients and 17 IVF clinicians. A-Twin subscale scores indicated neither the IVF clinicians nor female IVF patients demonstrated very positive attitudes to a twin birth although the IVF female patients were more in favour (t = 5.29, n = 117, p = <0.001). Responses suggest both groups would benefit from increased information about the risks of a twin birth for the baby. First cycle IVF female patients were significantly more positive about eSET (z = 3.94, n = 100, p = <0.001). Clinicians perceive both their colleagues' and female patients' negativity towards eSET; suggesting a role for education. CONCLUSIONS: This study found the ATIPS to be a reliable measure which could be useful in evaluating interventions to promote single embryo transfer.

Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer.

BACKGROUND: Single embryo transfer (SET) is the most effective way of reducing multiple pregnancy rates associated with assisted reproductive technology (ART). Despite published evidence suggesting that the judicious use of elective SET can lead to near-elimination of multiples without compromising cumulative live birth rates, the uptake of this strategy has been variable. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1978-2010) were searched using appropriate MeSH headings. Leading fertility journals along with appropriate cross references were hand searched and information retrieved from national ART registers and websites of national fertility societies in order to determine current rates of SET. We explored social, economic and clinical factors determining the uptake of SET. RESULTS: It was not possible to distinguish elective from non-elective SET from national ART reports. Data from 31 countries suggest that there has been a gradual increase in SET rates over a 3 year period (2003-2005) but major geographical differences were noted. SET rates are highest in Sweden (69.4%) but are as low as 2.8% in the USA. Access to public funding for ART, availability of good cryopreservation facilities and legislation appear to be the most important reasons favouring the uptake of SET. Personal choice plays a significant role as many subfertile couples have a strong preference for twins. Awareness that double embryo transfer (DET) increases live birth per fresh treatment cycle, inability to accurately identify women at high risk for twins and limitations of existing embryos selection criteria are barriers to a wider acceptance of SET. CONCLUSIONS: The current variation in the uptake of elective SET is likely to persist until there are major changes in the way ART is viewed, funded and legislated.