Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on February 27, 2004
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/deh176
© 2004 by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Aberdeen Fertility Centre, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZL, UK
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: s.bhattacharya{at}abdn.ac.uk.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of alternative ways of providing information about the risks of twins on couples’ perceptions about elective single embryo transfer (eSET). METHODS: Couples undergoing IVF were randomized into three groups. Group 1 received a standard information pack, group 2 an extra information leaflet about twin pregnancy, and group 3 an additional discussion session. The primary outcome measure was acceptability of a hypothetical policy of eSET. Data were collected by means of a questionnaire. RESULTS: eSET was acceptable to 17 (27%), 20 (30%) and 24 (32%) couples in groups 1, 2 and 3, if it meant a slight reduction in pregnancy rates, and to 51 (82%), 55 (83%) and 53 (87%) couples, respectively, if pregnancy rates were unchanged. A fixed charge for all fresh and frozen embryo transfers following a single oocyte retrieval led to acceptability rates of 35 (57%), 36 (55%) and 38 (65%). CONCLUSIONS: Additional information, involving an extra information leaflet and face to face discussion, did not changes couples’ attitudes towards eSET. Maintaining existing rates of pregnancy and offering a fixed charge for all embryo transfers resulting from an oocyte recovery may encourage more couples to consider eSET. Key words:
Key words: IVF/patient information/provision of information/randomized controlled trial/single embryo transfer
Revised January 2, 2004
Accepted January 22, 2004
Article
A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer
Abstract 
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Z. Veleva, P. Karinen, C. Tomas, J. S. Tapanainen, and H. Martikainen Elective single embryo transfer with cryopreservation improves the outcome and diminishes the costs of IVF/ICSI Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2009; 24(7): 1632 - 1639. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Kosmas, J. Van der Elst, P. Devroey, and H. Tournaye Elective single embryo transfer Obstet Gynaecol (Lond), July 1, 2008; 10(3): 163 - 169. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Garel, B. Blondel, L. Karpel, V. Blanchet, G. Breart, R. Frydman, and F. Olivennes Patient attitudes towards twin pregnancies and SET: a questionnaire study Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2008; 23(5): 1232 - 1233. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Polinder, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, J.D.F. Habbema, B.J.C.M. Fauser, and M.J.C. Eijkemans Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2008; 23(2): 316 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.J. Pelinck, N.E.A. Vogel, E.G.J.M. Arts, A.H.M. Simons, M.J. Heineman, and A. Hoek Cumulative pregnancy rates after a maximum of nine cycles of modified natural cycle IVF and analysis of patient drop-out: a cohort study Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2007; 22(9): 2463 - 2470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. J. Stillman A 47-Year-Old Woman With Fertility Problems Who Desires a Multiple Pregnancy JAMA, February 28, 2007; 297(8): 858 - 867. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. van Wely, M. Twisk, B.W. Mol, and F. van der Veen Is twin pregnancy necessarily an adverse outcome of assisted reproductive technologies? Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 2736 - 2738. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. de Klerk, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, H.J. Duivenvoorden, B.C.J.M. Fauser, J. Passchier, and J.A.M. Hunfeld The psychological impact of mild ovarian stimulation combined with single embryo transfer compared with conventional IVF Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2006; 21(3): 721 - 727. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Pinborg IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2005; 11(6): 575 - 593. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Porter, and S. Bhattacharya Investigation of staff and patients' opinions of a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2005; 20(9): 2523 - 2530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.J. Pelinck, N.E.A. Vogel, A. Hoek, E.G.J.M. Arts, A.H.M. Simons, and M.J. Heineman Minimal stimulation IVF with late follicular phase administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix and concomitant substitution with recombinant FSH: a pilot study Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 20(3): 642 - 648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M.R. Gerris Single embryo transfer and IVF/ICSI outcome: a balanced appraisal Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2005; 11(2): 105 - 121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Steures, J. C. Berkhout, P. G.A. Hompes, J. W. van der Steeg, P. M.M. Bossuyt, F. van der Veen, J. D. F. Habbema, M. J.C. Eijkemans, and B. W.J. Mol Patients' preferences in deciding between intrauterine insemination and expectant management Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 20(3): 752 - 755. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Bhattacharya and A. Templeton What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Redefining success in the context of elective single embryo transfer: evidence, intuition and financial reality Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1939 - 1942. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, and B.C.J.M. Fauser What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1936 - 1938. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|