![The World Congress on Controversies in Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility (COGI). Click here to learn more.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112382/JournalAd-COGI2024-Leaderboard.jpg"})
Abstract
The appropriate clinical care of women/couples with infertility experiencing recurrent miscarriage (RM) is overlooked in international guidelines. We sought to evaluate care provision for women/couples with RM and infertility across public (19 clinics providing RM care, five fertility clinics) and private sectors (nine fertility clinics) using adapted guideline-based key performance indicators (KPIs) for RM. An online survey comprised of multiple-choice/open questions was administered via Qualtrics from November 2021 to February 2022, encompassing: (i) structure of care, (ii) investigations, (iii) treatments, (iv)counselling/supportive care and (v) outcomes. Clinical leads for pregnancy loss and fertility and clinical nurse/midwife specialists within each unit/clinic were invited to participate.
The response rate 73% (24/33), varied by provider: Public RM care (18/19; 95%), 2/5 public fertility (40%); private fertility (3/9; 33%). Access to fertility expertise was limited in public RM clinics (39%). While investigations and treatments provided mostly adhered to guidelines, there was uncertainty regarding immunotherapies. Educational needs identified included fertility counselling, informative and supportive care resources. Clinical outcomes were seldom audited (2/22; 9%). Greater engagement with the private sector is required to unify care across sectors and to ensure standardised evidence-based care. Audit and outcomes reporting should be mandated. Lived experience of current care structures should inform service improvements.
What is already known on this subject? There is a paucity of research into the appropriate clinical care of women/couples with infertility experiencing recurrent miscarriage, with a resulting deficit within international RM guidelines. It is known that RM care is variable and often not in line with guidance.
What do the results of this study add? This study demonstrates that while care is largely in line with clinical practice guidelines, there is variation in counselling, imaging and surgical treatments offered. Areas for education identified included fertility counselling and resources for information provision and supportive care. Clinical outcomes were seldom audited.
What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Fertility care must expand to ensure access for women with RM and infertility. Further research exploring barriers and facilitators to the delivery of evidence-based care for women/couples with infertility and RM is required. The lived experiences of service users must inform service improvements.
Impact Statement
Introduction
The traditional definition and care model for recurrent miscarriage (RM) whereby three consecutive miscarriages are the threshold for investigation, treatment or supportive care has been challenged recently (Bhattacharya et al. Citation2010, Van Dijk et al. Citation2020, Coomarasamy et al. Citation2021). This move to implement care after any two pregnancy losses before viability (Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Citation2020, ESHRE Early Pregnancy Guideline Development Group Citation2023) has been driven, in part, by women’s experiences (Bardos et al. Citation2015, Dennehy et al. Citation2022) and identification of a need for greater support after miscarriage (Musters et al. Citation2011, Citation2013, Bailey et al. Citation2019). Increasingly, miscarriage is recognised as a risk factor for both future pregnancy outcomes and maternal cardiovascular disease (Quenby et al. Citation2021).
The need of women/couples to understand why a miscarriage has occurred has been linked to subsequent psychological wellbeing (Bardos et al. Citation2015). It is unsurprising that in an examination of clinical practice in the UK, a proportion of investigations and treatments for RM outside of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guidance were requested by women (Manning et al. Citation2021). Other factors attributed to deviation from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) included the acceptability of guidelines and the low-quality evidence underpinning them (Manning et al. Citation2021). Reduced compliance to CPGs has previously been demonstrated internationally (Franssen et al. Citation2007, Van Den Boogaard et al. Citation2013). Advanced maternal age and higher order miscarriage were also highlighted as driving factors for performing investigation and treatment outside of CPG recommendations (Van Den Boogaard et al. Citation2013).
These studies did not consider the fertility history of the couple in applying CPGs, although gamete donation was considered by over a third of Dutch gynaecologists as a treatment for RM (Franssen et al. Citation2007). Updated clinical guidance has not considered couples who experience RM and concurrent infertility (Regan et al. Citation2023), reflecting their exclusion from studies in the wider literature (Linehan et al. Citation2021). An international evaluation of RM CPGs showed that recommendations for the management of RM, including supportive care, do not incorporate the fertility history of women/couples experiencing RM (Hennessy et al. Citation2021). This oversight is not insignificant; RM and infertility share risk factors such as maternal age, have a reciprocal association and are independent risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes (Linehan et al. Citation2021). Moreover, the psychological impact of the dual experience results in differing supportive care needs (Freda et al. Citation2003).
In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), several factors complicate the care of women with RM and infertility. Primarily, to date there has been no national RM guideline, rather the RCOG guideline was adopted by most Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (Hennessy et al. Citation2022a, Citation2022b). Public fertility care is limited in capacity and geographical location; therefore, most fertility care is provided by private or not-for-profit healthcare operatives (Timoney Citation2022). Fertility services in the private and not-for-profit sector currently encompass nine main providers, some with multiple clinics nationwide (HPRA Citation2022). While clinics that handle human tissue are registered and monitored (HPRA Citation2022), there is no other fertility care register or mandatory outcomes reporting (Timoney Citation2022). A review of websites providing RM information found smaller clinics or individual fertility specialists provide a variety of investigations and some treatments, including artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs), in a more limited capacity (O’Regan et al. Citation2022). Without a national miscarriage or pregnancy database, or a requirement for fertility clinics to publish outcomes data, it is unknown how many women and couples in Ireland experience RM and infertility. The clinical pathways within private services or between public and private are also unclear. Furthermore, how care is delivered to women and couples with RM and infertility within the ROI or how this care varies nationally is unknown.
This study sought to evaluate care provision for women/couples with RM and infertility within the current framework across public and private sectors, using adapted guideline-based key performance indicators (KPIs) for RM.
Materials and methods
The Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals granted ethical approval for this study (ref. ECM 4 (i) 13/4/2021 & ECM 3 (aaa) 19/10/2021).
This online survey on RM and infertility was administered via Qualtrics and modelled on guideline-based KPIs for RM care developed within the RE:CURRENT Project through a six-phase consensus study (Hennessy et al. Citation2022a, Citation2022b). The survey comprised 41 questions, mainly multiple choice, across five sections pertaining to the care of women/couples with RM and infertility: (i) structure of care, (ii) counselling/supportive care, (iii) investigations, (iv) treatments and (v) outcomes (Supplementary File 1).
The survey was distributed alongside a national service evaluation on RM care. Respondents to the RM service evaluation in each of the 19 maternity hospitals/units in Ireland (named lead clinician, and/or clinical midwife/nurse specialist (CMS) in bereavement and loss, or director of midwifery), were asked to complete the survey (Hennessy et al. Citation2022a, Citation2022b). Additionally, the named lead clinician for fertility in maternity units that had a public fertility service was approached (n = 5). The survey was also distributed to the clinical lead or specialist with an interest in RM each private fertility clinic (n = 9). The survey algorithm was constructed such that questions were tailored towards those working in the public RM service, public fertility or private fertility sectors accordingly. Only one response per service was required.
Participants were invited to complete an online survey between 15 November 2021 and 18 March 2022. To facilitate recruitment, individual invites were emailed to potential participants, and clinic managers, where applicable. Participants provided informed consent prior to survey commencement. They were advised that the survey would take about 45–60 minutes to complete and reassured that reported findings would not identify individual participants, clinics or hospitals. Alternative modes of completion included telephone, or in-person, completion with a research team member. Regular (n = 3) email reminders were used to maximise the response rate. Data were analysed in Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics.
Results
Demographics
The response rate was 73%, with 24 of 33 individuals completing the survey for their clinic/service. This included 18 healthcare professionals (HCPs) in public maternity services (18/19; 95%), two consultants in public/not-for-profit fertility services (2/5; 40%); three HCPs from private fertility clinics (3/9; 33%). Nine stated that they were clinical lead for a RM clinic (9/24; 38%). Greater details on respondents are presented in .
Table 1. Respondent demographics and counselling/supportive care.
Structure of care
Responses to questions for structure of care in both public and private sectors are laid out in .
Table 2. Structure of care.
In half of cases, the consultant with training in RM management was the respondent. Reasons for referral from private clinics to public or private RM clinics included to obtain investigations not available within a particular clinic, to avoid costs of investigations for women/couples, or for expertise in the interpretation of results or further management. Regarding referral for surgical treatments, 11/19 (58%) respondents referred within or to public and private services, seven referred within or to public services only (7/19; 37%), with one stating no referral pathway existed (1/19; 5%).
Counselling and supportive care
Respondents were asked what topics they regularly discussed with women with RM and infertility; these results, in addition to the guidance employed, are presented in .
Additional sources of education and guidance cited included the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA) (n = 1) and colleagues working in other jurisdictions (n = 1). Written information on RM and infertility or related topics was provided by four providers (4/24; 17%); one respondent cited a local leaflet, the remainder directed women to the websites of international bodies such as ESHRE, RCOG, NICE, ASRM or BFS.
Eleven respondents (11/20; 55%) provide information to women/couples about reputable sources of support for infertility and RM, both within the hospital and externally, while nine answered no (9/20; 45%). Sources of support included national support groups for miscarriage or pregnancy loss (n = 5), local leaflet (n = 4), bereavement midwife contact details (n = 3), national websites (n = 2) and international bodies (n = 2).
Investigations
Respondents were asked if they performed additional investigations outside of routine fertility testing (e.g. full blood count, liver, renal and thyroid function tests, prolactin, diabetic screen, day 2 FSH/LH, day 21 progesterone, pelvic US, ovarian reserve testing, male partner semen analysis and hysterosalpingogram (HSG)) which feature in the KPIs; results are presented in .
Table 3. Investigations and treatments.
Six respondents would routinely perform imaging in addition to a pelvic ultrasound (6/20; 30%), 13 would do so in certain clinical circumstances (13/20; 65%) and one would never do so (1/20; 5%). Named additional imaging obtained included CT (n = 5), MRI (n = 13), HSG (n = 13) and hystero-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) (n = 2).
Ten respondents said they would treat chronic endometritis if found (10/22; 45%), six said they would not treat (6/22; 28%) and six were unsure (28%).
The purpose of a HVS would be to test for chlamydia (n = 7), gonorrhoea (n = 3), other unnamed sexually transmitted infections (n = 3), bacterial vaginosis (n = 5) or candida (n = 1.) Fourteen respondents said they would subsequently treat with antibiotics (14/20; 70%).
Treatments
Respondents were asked which treatments within the KPIs they would provide to women with RM and infertility, which are shown in . Hysteroscopy and laparoscopy are included as treatments as they require placement on a surgical operating list, in addition to the potential to ‘see and treat’.
Embryoscope was mentioned by one provider as a potential add-on treatment for this cohort. Progesterone therapy was also examined, with notable variety in the duration of prescriptions (N = 14): up to the end of the 12th week (n = 6), up to eight weeks (n = 2), up to the 10th week (n = 1), up to 16 weeks (n = 2) and variably according to history (n = 1). Reasons cited for varying progesterone regimes included use of donor oocytes, frozen cycles or a preterm birth history.
Eight respondents (8/20; 40%) provided written information to women/couples on medication commencement/cessation, while 12 did not (60%).
Two respondents (2/22; 9%) indicated that audit of subsequent pregnancy outcomes is performed in their unit (no audit; 20/22 (90%); no response, n = 2). Both providers recorded livebirth rates, while just one examined the subsequent pregnancy rate and first- or second-trimester miscarriage rate.
Discussion
This national service evaluation of care for women/couples with RM and infertility demonstrates that while management mostly adhered to the relevant KPIs, there was variation in counselling, investigations and surgical treatments offered. While public providers responded well, the private provider responder rate was low.
There was wide range in the number of women seen annually with RM and infertility, from 0 to 150. A recent audit of RM care in women with three miscarriages and infertility in a large Irish maternity unit estimated an average of 11 women attended per annum (Linehan et al., Citation2023a). Even when including women with two consecutive miscarriages, provided figures seem improbable. Potentially, this is due to more women seeking treatment in the private sector, possibly after two rather than three miscarriages, or a disparity between the provided estimations and the true number seen annually. This reiterates the need for better recording of miscarriage data, possibly through a national register or database, along with outcomes data from fertility services (Timoney Citation2022).
The availability of fertility specialists for consultations in the public sector was 39%, with 28% having access to fertility counsellors. Conversely, within fertility services, access to a specialist experienced in RM care (75%) and bereavement counselling (100%) was better. While access to these services within the public sector should improve with funding for fertility services nationally, efforts must be made to overcome the geographical limitations posed by centralisation of these services in larger cities. Although fertility clinics were in agreement on referring for RM care after three miscarriages, this is outdated guidance (Regan et al. Citation2011). Referral pathways from public hospitals for fertility care were mostly to larger public maternity hospitals, but a quarter were to private clinics or not defined. Surgical pathways were also unclear, with most referring to both public and private operators. How efficient these pathways are regarding waiting periods, and what additional burdens such as travel and costs they place on women/couples, merits exploration.
The time allocated to consultations was also variable, from 15 to 60 minutes. It is important that women/couples are allocated adequate time for in-depth counselling to address their concerns and to plan for future pregnancy (Musters et al. Citation2011, Koert et al. Citation2019). This is particularly important for women/couples with infertility who are highly motivated to conceive again and seek fertility treatments. Certainly, information provided was variable, with less than half of women provided with information on all potential fertility treatment options. The risks and benefits of such treatments, including success rates, are important to relay to, and discuss with, women/couples (Ethics Committee (ASRM) Citation2022). Notably, the 2011 RCOG guideline predominated as an educational resource, suggesting a possible reluctance to follow international guidelines, alongside the need for updated education and guidance. Interestingly, half of respondents indicated that they used national guidelines to inform practice; however, there was neither a national RM nor fertility guideline available. An Irish guideline on RM has since been published (Linehan et al., Citation2023b), alongside updated ESHRE and RCOG guidelines, identifying this educational deficit is important to secure resources and training supports for successful implementation. Details of continuing professional development attended or online resources employed were not provided by respondents, despite the opportunity to do so. There was limited awareness of available national resources for women/couples, with international sources cited more often. Awareness of these national educational and supportive resources must increase to direct women to the most relevant information and accessible supports, as online resources are not always reliable or wholly informative (O’Regan et al. Citation2022). Identifying women’s/couples’ needs could also inform more applicable resources.
Investigations routinely performed varied, similar to other studies (Franssen et al. Citation2007, van den Boogaard et al. Citation2013, Manning et al. Citation2021, Hennessy et al. Citation2022a, Citation2022b). This may reflect the adaptation of practice in line with updated evidence, as some previously recommended investigations are not recommended in updated guidance (e.g. thrombophilia screening) (ESHRE Early Pregnancy Guideline Development Group Citation2023, Regan et al. Citation2023). Some investigations while demonstrating a clear association with RM, such as ANA and thyroid peroxidase antibodies, do not have subsequent evidence-based treatments, which may deter from inclusion in routine practice (Cavalcante et al. Citation2020, Dong et al. Citation2020). Most respondents did not perform unorthodox immunological investigations routinely, in line with CPGs. While 25% of respondents were unsure of unorthodox immunological investigations, a considerable proportion were unsure of standard investigations (13%), e.g. anti-phospholipid antibodies, indicating a need for greater education, extended to all involved HCPs. Counselling women/couples on not performing unnecessary investigations such as HVS is important as almost half of couples with RM feel under-investigated (Flannery et al. Citation2023). Endometrial scratch or biopsy was performed against CPGs by a proportion of respondents, in addition to unrecommended tests for uterine natural killer cells and chronic endometritis. They would also treat chronic endometritis, which is not shown to be of benefit (Kato et al. Citation2022). As it was beyond the scope of this study, it is unknown what laboratories perform these immunological tests or what the parameters and subsequent treatment thresholds are. Such standardisation is important in determining a true clinical effect and the absence of protocols for immune profiling, particularly for natural killer cells, has been flagged in systematic reviews of immunological treatments (von Woon et al. Citation2020). Immunological treatments employed such as intralipid therapy and LIT continue to not be recommended within updated guidance, despite some reported benefits, due to the heterogeneity of study populations and protocols, and methodological quality (Cavalcante et al. Citation2021, Citation2022).
While sperm DNA fragmentation testing is to be considered (ESHRE Early Pregnancy Guideline Development Group Citation2023), it is not widely available as our findings show, and implementation would require significant investment in andrology services within the ROI. In addition to structural constraints in ART provision, PGT-A remains a ‘code red’ add-on due to a lack of high-quality evidence to demonstrate a benefit in RM treatment (HFEA Citation2023). Similarly, there is no strong evidence to support treatment for male factors in RM (Linehan et al. Citation2023b).
Surgical interventions were mostly performed in line with CPGs. Few respondents performed complex surgeries such as metroplasty. Again, the publication of outcomes data for women undergoing these surgeries would contribute to the limited available literature. Such treatments should be ideally within the context of a randomised control trial (Regan et al. Citation2023) and undertaken by a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) (NICE Citation2015). Given the small numbers of women likely to experience a major Mullerian abnormality annually and the absence of an international guideline on management (Grimbizis et al. Citation2016), consideration should be given to establishing such an MDT with clear protocols within the new public fertility framework.
Medical treatments for unexplained RM were not widely prescribed with most reserved for certain clinical circumstances. Greater consideration could be given to prescribing aspirin given the results of the EAGeR trial and the benefits in reducing pre-eclampsia and preterm birth (Poon et al. Citation2017, Naimi et al. Citation2021) particularly in a cohort of women with infertility or of AMA. Similarly, there is evidence to suggest progesterone is of benefit in those with a history of miscarriage and bleeding (Coomarasamy et al. Citation2020) and it could be offered in the absence of bleeding as there is a benefit, albeit not statistically significant (Coomarasamy et al. Citation2021). Again, a proportion of respondents were unsure of prescribing medications. This study identifies a clear need for a national clinical guideline with accompanying education, combined with adequate resources and supports for implementation among all HCPs.
Strengths and limitations
This is an original study using guideline-based KPIs developed with a diverse stakeholder group to examine care provision nationally for women/couples with RM and infertility. This topic had not been covered previously nationally or internationally, and this work, like previous studies, provides insights on how current practice compares to current CPGs. CPGs are limited by the quality and currency of evidence underpinning recommendations, with a notable scarcity of high-quality randomised control trials in RM and infertility treatments (Cavalcante et al. Citation2021, Cavalcante and Barini Citation2022). Moreover, the RCOG and ESHRE guidelines used for KPI development have been updated and an Irish guideline on RM published; these will need to be incorporated into revised KPIs for future audit.
This study is timely, providing evidence for service improvements in advance of the introduction of publicly funded fertility treatment in the ROI (Women’s Health Action Plan Citation2023). The 73% response rate incorporates an excellent response rate from RM services (95%), but poor response rates from public (40%) and private (33%) fertility clinics. This was despite three reminders and efforts associated with higher response rates such as small sample size, personalisation and reworded reminders (Sauermann and Roach Citation2013, Wu et al. Citation2022). Potentially, this excludes meaningful insights into fertility structures and management practices. It is a potential limitation that just one clinic from each fertility group was surveyed as there may have been inter-responder/regional variation. A proportion of surveys were answered by CMS who may not have experience of ART and this may be a contributory factor in the not insignificant proportion of blank/don’t know responses.
Conclusions
This national service evaluation identified practice largely in line with CPGs. However, staff education is required, especially regarding counselling, information provision and resources to better inform and support women. Care structures must improve to allow better access to fertility services and ameliorate referral processes. Investigations should align with updated guidance. A small number of providers offer unorthodox investigations and treatments, which warrants further attention. There needs to be greater engagement from the private fertility sector and an onus to report outcomes data as well as treatments and interventions used. The lived experience of women/couples currently using RM and infertility services must be obtained to direct service improvements.
Supplemental Material
Download MS Word (43 KB)Disclosure statement
Dr Laura Linehan, Marita Hennessy, PhD and Professor Keelin O’Donoghue are co-authors of the Irish RM Guideline.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, [LL]. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.
Additional information
Funding
References
- Bailey, S.L., et al., 2019. Hope for the best …but expect the worst: a qualitative study to explore how women with recurrent miscarriage experience the early waiting period of a new pregnancy. BMJ Open, 9 (5), e029354.
- Bardos, J., et al., 2015. A national survey on public perceptions of miscarriage. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 125 (6), 1313–1320.
- Bhattacharya, S.S., Townend, J., and Bhattacharya, S.S., 2010. Recurrent miscarriage: are three miscarriages one too many? Analysis of a Scottish population-based database of 151,021 pregnancies. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 150 (1), 24–27.
- Cavalcante, M.B. and Barini, R., 2022. Recurrent pregnancy loss and hereditary thrombophilias – is it time to review the guidelines? Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 42 (6), 2545–2546.
- Cavalcante, M.B., Sarno, M., and Barini, R., 2021. Lymphocyte immunotherapy in recurrent miscarriage and recurrent implantation failure. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 85 (4), e13408.
- Cavalcante, M.B., Sarno, M., and Barini, R., 2022. Immunotherapies to optimize pregnancy outcomes in subfertile women. Human Reproduction Update, 28 (4), 601–602.
- Cavalcante, M.B., et al., 2020. Antinuclear antibodies and recurrent miscarriage: systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 83 (3), e13215.
- Coomarasamy, A., et al., 2020. Micronized vaginal progesterone to prevent miscarriage: a critical evaluation of randomized evidence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 223 (2), 167–176.
- Coomarasamy, A., et al., 2021. Recurrent miscarriage: evidence to accelerate action. The Lancet, 397 (10285), 1675–1682.
- Dennehy, R., et al., 2022. How we define recurrent miscarriage matters: a qualitative exploration of the views of people with professional or lived experience. Health Expectations, 25 (6), 2992–3004.
- Dong, A.C., et al., 2020. Subclinical hypothyroidism and thyroid autoimmunity in recurrent pregnancy loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertility and Sterility, 113 (3), 587–600.e1.
- ESHRE Early Pregnancy Guideline Development Group, 2023. Guideline on the management of recurrent pregnancy loss. Strombeek-bever.
- Ethics Committee (ASRM), 2022. Provision of fertility services for women at increased risk of complications during fertility treatment or pregnancy: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 106 (6), 1319–1323.
- Flannery, C., et al., 2023. Factors that shape recurrent miscarriage care experiences: findings from a national survey. BMC Health Services Research, 23, 317.
- Franssen, M.T.M., et al., 2007. Management of recurrent miscarriage: evaluating the impact of a guideline. Human Reproduction, 22 (5), 1298–1303.
- Freda, M.C., Devine, K.S., and Semelsberger, C., 2003. The lived experience of miscarriage after infertility. American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 28 (1), 16–23.
- Grimbizis, G.F., et al., 2016. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE Consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Gynecological Surgery, 13, 1–16.
- Hennessy, M., et al., 2021. Clinical practice guidelines for recurrent miscarriage in high-income countries: a systematic review. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 42 (6), 1146–1171.
- Hennessy, M., et al., 2022a. A national evaluation of recurrent miscarriage care services. Irish Medical Journal, 116 (1), 16.
- Hennessy, M., et al., 2022b. Developing guideline-based key performance indicators for recurrent miscarriage care: lessons from a multi-stage consensus process with a diverse stakeholder group. Research Involvement and Engagement, 8 (1), 18.
- HFEA, 2023. Pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) [online]. Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/treatment-add-ons/pre-implantation-genetic-testing-for-aneuploidy-pgt-a/ [Accessed 19 June 2023].
- HPRA, 2022. Blood and tissues establishments list [online]. Available from: http://www.hpra.ie/homepage/blood-tissues-organs/blood-and-tissues-establishments-list [Accessed 13 December 2022].
- Kato, H., et al., 2022. Systematic review and meta-analysis for impacts of oral antibiotic treatment on pregnancy outcomes in chronic endometritis patients. Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, 28 (5), 610–615.
- Koert, E., et al., 2019. Recurrent pregnancy loss: couples’ perspectives on their need for treatment, support and follow up. Human Reproduction, 34 (2), 291–296.
- Linehan, L., Hennessy, M., and O'Donoghue, K., 2021. Infertility and subsequent recurrent miscarriage: current state of the literature and future considerations for practice and research. HRB Open Research, 4, 100.
- Linehan, L., Hennessy, M., and O'Donoghue, K., 2023a. An examination of care received by women with recurrent miscarriage and infertility against guideline-based key performance indicators. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 282, 17–23.
- Linehan, L., et al., 2023b. National Clinical Practice Guideline: recurrent miscarriage. Dublin: National Women and Infants Health Programme and the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
- Manning, R., et al., 2021. Are we managing women with recurrent miscarriage appropriately? A snapshot survey of clinical practice within the United Kingdom. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 41 (5), 807–814.
- Musters, A.M., et al., 2011. Supportive care for women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage: patients’ perspectives. Human Reproduction, 26 (4), 873–877.
- Musters, A.M., et al., 2013. Supportive care for women with recurrent miscarriage: a survey to quantify women’s preferences. Human Reproduction, 28 (2), 398–405.
- Naimi, A.I., et al., 2021. The effect of preconception-initiated low-dose aspirin on hCG pregnancy, pregnancy loss, and live birth: per-protocol analysis of a randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 174 (5), 595–601.
- NICE, 2015. Hysteroscopic metroplasty of a uterine septum for recurrent miscarriage [online]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg510/chapter/1-Recommendations [Accessed 27 Jul 2023].
- O’Regan, C., et al., 2022. A quantitative content analysis of Irish and UK websites providing miscarriage and recurrent miscarriage information. Junior Obstetricians and Gynaecology Society (JOGS) Annual Scientific Meeting – Book of Abstracts – Irish Medical Journal, 166.
- Poon, L.C., et al., 2017. Aspirin for evidence-based preeclampsia prevention trial: effect of aspirin in prevention of preterm preeclampsia in subgroups of women according to their characteristics and medical and obstetrical history. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 217 (5), 585.e1–585.e5.
- Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2020. Definitions of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 113, 533–535.
- Quenby, S., et al., 2021. Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss. Lancet, 397 (10285), 1658–1667.
- Regan, L., Backos, M., and Rai, R., 2011. The investigation and treatment of couples with recurrent first-trimester and second-trimester miscarriage green-top guideline No. 17.Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (RCOG).
- Regan, L., et al., 2023. Recurrent miscarriage (Green-top Guideline No. 17). RCOG [online]. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/green-top-guidelines/recurrent-miscarriage-green-top-guideline-no-17/ [Accessed 21 June 2023].
- Sauermann, H. and Roach, M., 2013. Increasing web survey response rates in innovation research: an experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features. Research Policy, 42 (1), 273–286.
- Timoney, A., 2022. Data: assisted human reproduction. Dublin.
- Van Den Boogaard, E., et al., 2013. Recurrent miscarriage: do professionals adhere to their guidelines. Human Reproduction, 28 (11), 2898–2904.
- Van Dijk, M.M., et al., 2020. Recurrent pregnancy loss: diagnostic workup after two or three pregnancy losses? A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update, 26 (3), 356–367.
- von Woon, E., et al., 2020. Immunotherapy to improve pregnancy outcome in women with abnormal natural killer cell levels/activity and recurrent miscarriage or implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 142, 103189.
- Women’s Health Action Plan, 2023. Women’s Health Action Plan 2022–2023 [online], Available from: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/232af-womens-health-action-plan-2022-2023/ [Accessed 8 January 2023].
- Wu, M.J., Zhao, K., and Fils-Aime, F., 2022. Response rates of online surveys in published research: a meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100206.