P–503 Focus groups with health care professionals, patient advocates and patients to explore how the potential need for multiple cycles is managed during fertility treatment consultations
Authors: Harrison C , Boivin J , Sofia G 
Published: August 2021

Study question

How is possibility of failure and potential need for multiple cycles discussed with patients during the first or repeat IVF/ICSI treatment consultation?

Summary answer

Health Care Professionals plan treatment on a cycle-by-cycle basis because it is the normative way to plan treatment, but patients see advantages in multi-cycle planning.

What is known already

Many patients need more than one round of IVF/ICSI stimulation to achieve their parenthood goals. A recent study has found around 60% of patients to be willing to plan for multiple cycles of treatment. However, it is not clear how patients are informed fully about the high possibility of treatment failure and the subsequent need for multiple cycles during their treatment planning consultations.

Study design, size, duration

Qualitative focus groups with health care professionals (HCP) patient advocates (April 2020) and patients (July and August 2020, respectively). Patients were eligible if they had had a consultation to start a first/repeat stimulated IVF/ICSI cycle in the eight weeks prior to participation, were aged 18 or older (upper age limit of 42 years for women) and fluent in English. Eligible Health HCPs and patient advocates were those employed at a fertility clinic or charity, respectively.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

HCP, patient advocate and patient focus group topic guides started with general questions about fertility consultations and progressed to discuss if and how the possibility of treatment failure and need for multiple cycles was introduced and discussed, and then preferences regarding planning IVF/ICSI on a multi-cycle rather than a single cycle basis. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis which allowed examination of shared, unique and incongruent thematic content across participant groups.

Main results and the role of chance

Twelve HCPs, 2 patient advocates and 11 patients participated in seven semi-structured online focus group discussions. Framework analysis revealed 52 codes (e.g., possibility of failure tentatively introduced; discussion of multiple cycles dependent on clinical/patient benchmarks) abstracted into 17 higher-level categories (e.g., Failure is a sensitive topic to approach; IVF treatment failure is the norm). Synthesis of categories revealed four themes and one meta theme The meta theme showed planning treatment on a cycle-by-cycle basis was the norm. This meta-theme was supported by four themes: (1) ‘culture of communication’ that dictated benchmarks (e.g., clinic, national live birth rate) and definition of key concepts (’complete’ cycle) that underpinned divergence between clinics; (2) ‘HCP-patient dynamics’ indexing degree of shared decision-making, advance preparation and involvement of partners in planning; (3) ‘tempering optimism’ that described tailoring, balancing and emotion management in giving personal chances of success; and (4) ‘transitioning to multi-cycle planning’ which identified worries of multi-cycle planning (e.g., need to learn from failure).

Limitations, reasons for caution

The majority of patients were women from private fertility clinics with no previous treatment experience recruited from social media websites, mainly associated with patient support groups. Similarly, the majority of HCPs were women from private fertility clinics. Informative comparisons across treatment stage, gender and funding source were therefore not possible.

Wider implications of the findings: HCPs are hesitant towards multi-cycle planning. However, patients show openness, suggesting a cultural shift from the single cycle norm of planning IVF/ICSI may be possible. If adopted by clinics, HCPs patients and fertility organisations, multi-cycle planning could encourage patients to create informed treatment expectations and plans prior to treatment engagemen.

Trial registration number

MS200059_001