The Perspective of Patients and Health Professionals on the Prioritization of Assisted Reproductive Techniques. The PRIOFER Study

References

• Roustaei Z, Räisänen S, Gissler M, Heinonen S. Fertility rates and the postponement of first births: a descriptive study with Finnish population data. BMJ Open. 2019;9(1):e026336. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026336
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agostini F, Monti F, Andrei F, Paterlini M, Palomba S, La Sala GB. Assisted reproductive technology treatments and quality of life: a longitudinal study among subfertile women and men. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(10):1307–1315. doi:10.1007/s10815-017-1000-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Namdar A, Naghizadeh MM, Zamani M, Yaghmaei F, Sameni MH. Quality of life and general health of infertile women. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):1–7. doi:10.1186/s12955-017-0712-y
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Farr SL, Anderson JE, Jamieson DJ, Warner L, Macaluso M. Predictors of pregnancy and discontinuation of infertility services among women who received medical help to become pregnant, national survey of family growth, 2002. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):988–997. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson EL, Hershberger P. Fertility and Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART): Theory, Research, Policy and Practice for Health Care Practitioners. Springer Publishing Company; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Slade P, O’Neill C, Simpson AJ, Lashen H. The relationship between perceived stigma, disclosure patterns, support and distress in new attendees at an infertility clinic. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(8):2309–2317. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyns C, De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, et al. ART in Europe, 2017: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021(3):hoab026. doi:10.1093/hropen/hoab026
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adamson GD, Tabangin M, Macaluso M, de Mouzon J. The number of babies born globally after treatment with the assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):S42. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.1807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaami S, Stark M, Signore F, Gullo G, Marinelli E. Fertility preservation in female cancer sufferers: (only) a moral obligation? Eur J ContrAcept Reprod Health Care. 2022;27(4):335–340. doi:10.1080/13625187.2022.2045936
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logishetty K, Edwards TC, Subbiah Ponniah H, et al. How to prioritize patients and redesign care to safely resume planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bone Jt Open. 2021;2(2):134–140. doi:10.1302/2633-1462.22.BJO-2020-0200.R1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tognetto D, Brézin AP, Cummings AB, et al. Rethinking elective cataract surgery diagnostics, assessments, and tools after the COVID-19 pandemic experience and beyond: insights from the EUROCOVCAT group. Diagnostics. 2020;10(12):1035. doi:10.3390/diagnostics10121035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• COVIDSurg-Collaborative. Elective surgery cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic: global predictive modelling to inform surgical recovery plans. J Br Surg. 2020;107(11):1440–1449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross MS, Harrington BJ, Sufrin CB, Faden RR. Rethinking “Elective” procedures for women’s reproduction during Covid-19. Hastings Cent Rep. 2020;50(3):40–43. doi:10.1002/hast.1130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohrabi C, Alsafi Z, O’neill N, et al. World Health Organization declares global emergency: a review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Int J Surg. 2020;76:71–76. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. COVID-19 Has Caused Major Disruptions and Backlogs in Health Care, New WHO Study Finds. World Health Organization; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Ministerio de Sanidad B. Sistema de Información de Listas de Espera del Sistema Nacional de Salud (SISLE-SNS). Sanidad M, editor. Sanitaria SGd. Ministerio de Sanidad ed; 2020:20. Available from: https://www.sanidad.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/inforRecopilaciones/listaEspera.htm. Accessed October 4, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Secretaria General de Sanidad, Dirección General de Salud Pública, Calidad e Innovación, BOE MdS; 2019. Available from: https://www.sanidad.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/inforRecopilaciones/docs/LISTAS_PUBLICACION_dic19.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Arroyo J. Hasta tres años de espera para poder ser madre. El País; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• BOE MdS. Real Decreto 1039/2011, de 15 de julio, por el que se establecen los criterios marco para garantizar un tiempo máximo de acceso a las prestaciones sanitarias del Sistema Nacional de Salud; 2011. Available from: https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2011/BOE-A-2011-14190-consolidado.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, et al. Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries: the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(1). doi:10.1093/hropen/hoz044
   Google Scholar
• ESHRE. Comparative analysis of medically assisted reproduction in the EU: regulation and technologies SANCO/2008/C6/051; 2008. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/2016-11/study_eshre_en_0.pdf:FinalReport. Accessed October 4, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Alon I, Pinilla J. Assisted reproduction in Spain, outcome and socioeconomic determinants of access. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20(1):156. doi:10.1186/s12939-021-01438-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASRM. American Society for reproductive medicine (ASRM) patient management and clinical recommendations during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic; 2020. Available from: https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/news-and-publications/covid-19/covidtaskforce.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• ESHRE. Coronavirus Covid-19: ESHRE statement on pregnancy and conception; 2020. Available from: https://www.eshre.eu/Press-Room/ESHRE-News/2020. Accessed October 4, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• ASEBIR. Recomendaciones para la seguridad y reducción de riesgos ante la infección por coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) en las unidades de reproducción asistida. Sociedad Española de Fertilidad y Asociación para el estudio de la biología de la Reproducción; 2020:11.
   Google Scholar
• Gürtin ZB, Jasmin E, Da Silva P, Dennehy C, Harper J, Kanjani S. Fertility treatment delays during COVID-19: profiles, feelings and concerns of impacted patients. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2022;14:251–264. doi:10.1016/j.rbms.2021.12.004
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cutting E, Catt S, Vollenhoven B, Mol BW, Horta F. The impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on fertility patients and clinics around the world. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;44(4):755–763. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.12.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boivin J, Harrison C, Mathur R, Burns G, Pericleous-Smith A, Gameiro S. Patient experiences of fertility clinic closure during the COVID-19 pandemic: appraisals, coping and emotions. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(11):2556–2566. doi:10.1093/humrep/deaa218
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haham LM, Youngster M, Shani AK, et al. Suspension of fertility treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: views, emotional reactions and psychological distress among women undergoing fertility treatment. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42(4):849–858. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.01.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson AK, McQueen DB, Swanson AC, Confino R, Feinberg EC, Pavone ME. Psychological distress and postponed fertility care during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(2):333–341. doi:10.1007/s10815-020-02023-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Varela C, Mariani G, Dolz P, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on infertility treatments: not even a global pandemic was strong enough to hamper successful pregnancies. Life. 2021;12(1):6. doi:10.3390/life12010006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wedner-Ross S, Schippert C, von Versen-Höynck F. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women seeking fertility treatment: the patient’s perspective. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;305(6):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon JL, Balsom AA, Doering S. The psychological impact of fertility treatment suspensions during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0239253. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239253
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alviggi C, Esteves SC, Orvieto R, et al. COVID-19 and assisted reproductive technology services: repercussions for patients and proposal for individualized clinical management. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18(1):45. doi:10.1186/s12958-020-00605-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eijkemans MJC, Lintsen AME, Hunault CC, et al. Pregnancy chances on an IVF/ICSI waiting list: a national prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(7):1627–1632. doi:10.1093/humrep/den132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittenberg E, Bharel M, Bridges JF, Ward Z, Weinreb L. Using best-worst scaling to understand patient priorities: a case example of Papanicolaou tests for homeless women. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(4):359–364. doi:10.1370/afm.1937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung KL, Wijnen BF, Hollin IL, et al. Using best–worst scaling to investigate preferences in health care. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(12):1195–1209. doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–189. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orme BK. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Research Publishers; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, Johnson FR. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):1–14. doi:10.1186/s13561-016-0080-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sociedad Española de Ferlitidad y Ministerio de Sanidad. Informe estadístico de Técnicas de Reproducción Asistida Registro Nacional de Actividad Ministerio de Sanidad y Sociedad Española de Fertilidad. Sociedad Española de Ferlitidad y Ministerio de Sanidad; 2018:62.
   Google Scholar
• Severin F, Schmidtke J, Mühlbacher A, Rogowski WH. Eliciting preferences for priority setting in genetic testing: a pilot study comparing best-worst scaling and discrete-choice experiments. Eur J Med Genet. 2013;21(11):1202–1208. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.36
   Google Scholar
• BOE MdSyC. Real Decreto 605/2003, de 23 de mayo, por el que se establecen medidas para el tratamiento homogéneo de la información sobre las listas de espera en el Sistema Nacional de Salud; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• BOE MdSPSeI. Real Decreto 1039/2011, de 15 de julio, por el que se establecen los criterios marco para garantizar un tiempo máximo de acceso a las prestaciones sanitarias del Sistema Nacional de Salud. BOE-A-2011-14190; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Louviere J, Flynn T, Marley A. (2015) The BWS profile case. In: Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, editors. Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015:56–88.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valente R, Testi A, Tanfani E, et al. A model to prioritize access to elective surgery on the basis of clinical urgency and waiting time. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9(1):1. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-9-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang S. What it really means to cancel elective surgeries: to make room for coronavirus patients, hospitals are delaying procedures that would make major differences in people’s lives. Atlantic. 2020;2020:17.
   Google Scholar
• Wiltshire A, Jackson-Bey T, Walker Z, et al. To treat or not to treat: perceptions of the initial American Society for Reproductive Medicine COVID-19 recommendations among women’s health providers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(3):621–626. doi:10.1007/s10815-021-02064-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Rosa VL, Garzon S, Gullo G, et al. Fertility preservation in women affected by gynaecological cancer: the importance of an integrated gynaecological and psychological approach. Ecancermedicalscience. 2020;14:1035. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2020.1035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgio S, Polizzi C, Buzzaccarini G, et al. Psychological variables in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review. Prz Menopauzalny. 2022;21(1):47–63. doi:10.5114/pm.2022.114404
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Antonacci CL, Omari AM, Zaifman J, et al. Differences in patient and physician perceptions of urgency for musculoskeletal conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Orthopedics. 2021;44(4):e534–e8. doi:10.3928/01477447-20210618-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison M, Milbers K, Hudson M, Bansback N. Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open. 2017;7(5):e014719. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oudhoff JP, Timmermans DR, Knol DL, Bijnen AB, Van der Wal G. Prioritising patients on surgical waiting lists: a conjoint analysis study on the priority judgements of patients, surgeons, occupational physicians, and general practitioners. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(9):1863–1875. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.01.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner-Spady BL, Sanmugasunderam S, Courtright P, Mildon D, McGurran JJ, Noseworthy TW. Patient and physician perspectives of maximum acceptable waiting times for cataract surgery. Can J Ophthalmol. 2005;40(4):439–447. doi:10.1016/S0008-4182(05)80003-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Déry J, Ruiz A, Routhier F, et al. Patient and provider perspectives regarding criteria for patient prioritization in two specialized rehabilitation programs. Patient Exp J. 2021;8(1):174–183. doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1530
   Google Scholar
• Rovers MM, Wijn SR, Grutters JP, et al. Development of a decision analytical framework to prioritise operating room capacity: lessons learnt from an empirical example on delayed elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic in a hospital in the Netherlands. BMJ Open. 2022;12(4):e054110. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirubarajan A, Patel P, Tsang J, Prethipan T, Sreeram P, Sierra S. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on fertility care: a qualitative systematic review. Hum Fertil. 2021;26(1):1742–8149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee D. The impact of COVID-19 on human reproduction and directions for fertility treatment during the pandemic. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2021;48(4):273. doi:10.5653/cerm.2021.04504
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Say RE, Thomson R. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions--challenges for doctors. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):542–545. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.542
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lette M, Stoop A, Lemmens LC, Buist Y, Baan CA, De Bruin SR. Improving early detection initiatives: a qualitative study exploring perspectives of older people and professionals. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):1–13. doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0521-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williams CP, Miller‐Sonet E, Nipp RD, Kamal AH, Love S, Rocque GB. Importance of quality‐of‐life priorities and preferences surrounding treatment decision making in patients with cancer and oncology clinicians. Cancer. 2020;126(15):3534–3541. doi:10.1002/cncr.32961
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar