4.7 Article

Predicting dropout in fertility care: a longitudinal study on patient-centredness

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages 2177-2186

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det236

Keywords

patient-centredness; dropout; infertility; clinic factors; predictors

Funding

  1. Merck Serono, the Netherlands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Are clinic factors, including patients experiences with patient-centred care, associated with dropout in fertility care? Clinic factors, including patients experiences with patient-centred care, are not related to dropout. In fertility care, a significant proportion of patients do not achieve pregnancy because they discontinue treatment prematurely. Many studies have tried to identify factors predicting dropout, showing incompatible results. However, these studies mainly focus on factors at the treatment and patient level, while clinic factors have received little attention. This prospective, longitudinal study was nested within a large RCT, which aims to improve the level of patient-centredness of Dutch fertility care. Of the 1620 infertile women who were invited to participate, the baseline measurement of the study (T0) included 693 women who completed a questionnaire about their experiences with patient-centred fertility care. The follow-up of the patients was 1 year (T1). All included women suffered from infertility and were undergoing treatment in one of the 32 Dutch clinics involved in the trial. Levels of patient-centredness were determined using the Patient-Centredness Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility) at T0. Meanwhile, a professionals questionnaire was used to gather additional information on characteristics of the clinic (e.g. the number of patients per year or the presence of a fertility nurse). After 1 year, at T1 measurement, patients completed a questionnaire on their current status in fertility care, including their main reason for discontinuation if applicable. A total of 693 non-pregnant women completed the questionnaire set at T0 and 534 women (77.1) provided consent for follow-up. At T1 measurement, 434 women (81.3) completed the questionnaire and 153 of these women (35.2) continued treatment while 76 women (17.5) dropped out. Another 175 women (40.3) had achieved pregnancy and 30 patients (7.9) were advised to discontinue treatment for medical reasons. Neither levels of patient-centredness nor the additional clinic characteristics differed significantly between dropouts and compliers. However, patients who did not receive assisted reproduction treatment (ART; e.g. underwent intrauterine insemination, IUI) before they dropped out had significantly lower scores on the PCQ-Infertility subscale Respect for patients values than patients who continued their treatment [odds ratio (OR) 0.57; 95 confidence interval (CI) 0.340.95]. Patients who received ART and, subsequently, dropped out had higher scores on the PCQ-Infertility subscale Patient involvement than those receiving non-ART (OR 2.39; 95 CI 1.025.59). We were not able to follow-up a significant proportion (ca. 19) of the 1620 women who were invited for T0 measurement, which might have biased our results. We also excluded patients who were still in the diagnostic work-up stage and this might have influenced our results as it is known that patients dropout at this stage. As the PCQ-Infertility was validated in patients who were already undergoing treatment, we decided to focus on this patient group only. The results of this study provide a better insight into those factors influencing dropout from the perspective of factors in the clinic itself. Although most clinic factors were not related to dropout, clinic factors might be of use when predicting dropout for specific patient groups, such as patients receiving ART and non-ART. Future research should involve an exploration of more specific predictors of dropout at the patient, treatment and clinic levels. This work was supported by Merck Serono, the Netherlands. No competing interests declared.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available