4.0 Article

Barriers to continuing in vitro fertilisation - Why do patients exit fertility treatment?

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01236.x

关键词

barriers; in vitro fertilisation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many couples do not complete IVF treatment. There is little published data regarding this issue and also what changes might lead to better compliance rates. Aims: To investigate what proportion of patients discontinue IVF prematurely, why they stop treatment, and what factors are important for them to restart. Materials & Methods: Survey of 1310 patients undergoing IVF treatment over a 3-year period at a single IVF provider. Information was collection on demographics and the outcomes of treatment. For those who discontinued treatment two further questions were completed: reasons why treatment was discontinued (primary outcome measure) and factors required to reactivate fertility treatment (secondary outcome measure). Results: 40.2% response rate. 15.0% of patients discontinued IVF prematurely; 77.0% had a live birth or were currently pregnant. Those who discontinued treatment were more likely to be older and have a trade qualification. Of those who discontinued treatment; failing to become pregnant, cost, and stress were identified as factors. Less expensive treatment and a guaranteed baby were important factors for patients to restart treatment. Numerous comments were made regarding having readily available counselling services and continuity of care. Discussion: Reasons for stopping treatment are multifactorial. Our data set is limited by a low response rate. Further research is needed to into this issue, including differences between private and public cessation rates are barriers to completion of treatment. Conclusions: The majority of patients having IVF achieve either a live birth or fall pregnant through IVF. Service may be improved by decreasing cost, optimising outcomes and increasing availability of counselling services.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据