Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey

Autores
Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos; Coscia, Andrea Valeria; De Carvalho, Paula; Lancuba, Stella; Martinez, Gustavo; Ciapponi, Agustín
Año de publicación
2018
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Objectives: To evaluate motivations to perform an elective single embryo transfer (e-SET). Methods: Cross-sectional surveys to reproductive medicine specialists and to infertile patients undergoing assisted reproductive treatments. Results: In the physician's survey (n = 278), we found that the main reasons for not offering e-SET were the physicians’ belief that patients prefer optimizing the pregnancy rates regardless of the potential complications (57.1%). Regarding the decision making process, 76.7% of physicians thought that patients and doctors should make these decisions together and 93.3% would like to have a more formal decision-aid to help with counseling. In the patients’ survey (n = 100), 21.3% chose e-SET, while 33% mentioned that complications associated to multiple pregnancies were insufficiently discussed. Among those patients, none chose to have e-SET, while 30% of those who had a full discussion selected e-SET (p = 0.05). Conclusions: Most physicians did not offer e-SET based on potential patients’ negative feelings. Also, almost 30% take important decisions without the patient's participation. Patients that discussed more thoroughly this topic, more frequently selected e-SET. Almost all the physicians surveyed agreed that decision-aids could help in this important shared-decision process. Practice implications: Decision aids about e-SET vs DET are needed to help patients in the decision making process.
Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Sueldo, Carlos. University of California; Estados Unidos
Fil: Coscia, Andrea Valeria. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: De Carvalho, Paula. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Lancuba, Stella. No especifíca;
Fil: Martinez, Gustavo. No especifíca;
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina
Materia
BARRIERS
E-SET
MULTIPLE PREGNANCY
PREFERENCES
SURVEY
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/185348
Acceder
id CONICETDig_7dbabbcd1ce696dd8929d8eae3a79d0e
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/185348
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide surveyGlujovsky, DemianSueldo, CarlosCoscia, Andrea ValeriaDe Carvalho, PaulaLancuba, StellaMartinez, GustavoCiapponi, AgustínBARRIERSE-SETMULTIPLE PREGNANCYPREFERENCESSURVEYhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Objectives: To evaluate motivations to perform an elective single embryo transfer (e-SET). Methods: Cross-sectional surveys to reproductive medicine specialists and to infertile patients undergoing assisted reproductive treatments. Results: In the physician's survey (n = 278), we found that the main reasons for not offering e-SET were the physicians’ belief that patients prefer optimizing the pregnancy rates regardless of the potential complications (57.1%). Regarding the decision making process, 76.7% of physicians thought that patients and doctors should make these decisions together and 93.3% would like to have a more formal decision-aid to help with counseling. In the patients’ survey (n = 100), 21.3% chose e-SET, while 33% mentioned that complications associated to multiple pregnancies were insufficiently discussed. Among those patients, none chose to have e-SET, while 30% of those who had a full discussion selected e-SET (p = 0.05). Conclusions: Most physicians did not offer e-SET based on potential patients’ negative feelings. Also, almost 30% take important decisions without the patient's participation. Patients that discussed more thoroughly this topic, more frequently selected e-SET. Almost all the physicians surveyed agreed that decision-aids could help in this important shared-decision process. Practice implications: Decision aids about e-SET vs DET are needed to help patients in the decision making process.Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Sueldo, Carlos. University of California; Estados UnidosFil: Coscia, Andrea Valeria. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: De Carvalho, Paula. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Lancuba, Stella. No especifíca;Fil: Martinez, Gustavo. No especifíca;Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaElsevier Ireland2018-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/185348Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos; Coscia, Andrea Valeria; De Carvalho, Paula; Lancuba, Stella; et al.; Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey; Elsevier Ireland; Patient Education And Counseling; 101; 5; 5-2018; 945-9500738-3991CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.pec.2017.12.010info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399117306560info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-22T11:00:59Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/185348instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-22 11:00:59.998CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey
title Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey
spellingShingle Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey
Glujovsky, Demian
BARRIERS
E-SET
MULTIPLE PREGNANCY
PREFERENCES
SURVEY
title_short Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey
title_full Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey
title_fullStr Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey
title_full_unstemmed Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey
title_sort Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Glujovsky, Demian
Sueldo, Carlos
Coscia, Andrea Valeria
De Carvalho, Paula
Lancuba, Stella
Martinez, Gustavo
Ciapponi, Agustín
author Glujovsky, Demian
author_facet Glujovsky, Demian
Sueldo, Carlos
Coscia, Andrea Valeria
De Carvalho, Paula
Lancuba, Stella
Martinez, Gustavo
Ciapponi, Agustín
author_role author
author2 Sueldo, Carlos
Coscia, Andrea Valeria
De Carvalho, Paula
Lancuba, Stella
Martinez, Gustavo
Ciapponi, Agustín
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv BARRIERS
E-SET
MULTIPLE PREGNANCY
PREFERENCES
SURVEY
topic BARRIERS
E-SET
MULTIPLE PREGNANCY
PREFERENCES
SURVEY
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Objectives: To evaluate motivations to perform an elective single embryo transfer (e-SET). Methods: Cross-sectional surveys to reproductive medicine specialists and to infertile patients undergoing assisted reproductive treatments. Results: In the physician's survey (n = 278), we found that the main reasons for not offering e-SET were the physicians’ belief that patients prefer optimizing the pregnancy rates regardless of the potential complications (57.1%). Regarding the decision making process, 76.7% of physicians thought that patients and doctors should make these decisions together and 93.3% would like to have a more formal decision-aid to help with counseling. In the patients’ survey (n = 100), 21.3% chose e-SET, while 33% mentioned that complications associated to multiple pregnancies were insufficiently discussed. Among those patients, none chose to have e-SET, while 30% of those who had a full discussion selected e-SET (p = 0.05). Conclusions: Most physicians did not offer e-SET based on potential patients’ negative feelings. Also, almost 30% take important decisions without the patient's participation. Patients that discussed more thoroughly this topic, more frequently selected e-SET. Almost all the physicians surveyed agreed that decision-aids could help in this important shared-decision process. Practice implications: Decision aids about e-SET vs DET are needed to help patients in the decision making process.
Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Centro de Estudios en Ginecología y Reproducción; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Sueldo, Carlos. University of California; Estados Unidos
Fil: Coscia, Andrea Valeria. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: De Carvalho, Paula. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Lancuba, Stella. No especifíca;
Fil: Martinez, Gustavo. No especifíca;
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina
description Objectives: To evaluate motivations to perform an elective single embryo transfer (e-SET). Methods: Cross-sectional surveys to reproductive medicine specialists and to infertile patients undergoing assisted reproductive treatments. Results: In the physician's survey (n = 278), we found that the main reasons for not offering e-SET were the physicians’ belief that patients prefer optimizing the pregnancy rates regardless of the potential complications (57.1%). Regarding the decision making process, 76.7% of physicians thought that patients and doctors should make these decisions together and 93.3% would like to have a more formal decision-aid to help with counseling. In the patients’ survey (n = 100), 21.3% chose e-SET, while 33% mentioned that complications associated to multiple pregnancies were insufficiently discussed. Among those patients, none chose to have e-SET, while 30% of those who had a full discussion selected e-SET (p = 0.05). Conclusions: Most physicians did not offer e-SET based on potential patients’ negative feelings. Also, almost 30% take important decisions without the patient's participation. Patients that discussed more thoroughly this topic, more frequently selected e-SET. Almost all the physicians surveyed agreed that decision-aids could help in this important shared-decision process. Practice implications: Decision aids about e-SET vs DET are needed to help patients in the decision making process.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-05
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/185348
Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos; Coscia, Andrea Valeria; De Carvalho, Paula; Lancuba, Stella; et al.; Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey; Elsevier Ireland; Patient Education And Counseling; 101; 5; 5-2018; 945-950
0738-3991
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/185348
identifier_str_mv Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos; Coscia, Andrea Valeria; De Carvalho, Paula; Lancuba, Stella; et al.; Physicians and patients’ motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey; Elsevier Ireland; Patient Education And Counseling; 101; 5; 5-2018; 945-950
0738-3991
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.pec.2017.12.010
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399117306560
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier Ireland
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier Ireland
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1846781183288934400
score 12.982451

Publicaciones similares