Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on May 19, 2005
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/dei094
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/9/2523    most recent
dei094v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Porter,, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bhattacharya, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Porter,, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bhattacharya, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
Received June 24, 2004
Revised April 25, 2005
Accepted April 27, 2005

Article

Investigation of staff and patients’ opinions of a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer

Maureen Porter, 1* and Siladitya Bhattacharya 1

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Maureen Porter,, E-mail: m.a.porter{at}abdn.ac.uk


  Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the context of mounting concern about the risks of twin pregnancies resulting from IVF, this study aimed to assess staff and patients’ attitudes towards a proposed randomized controlled trial (RCT) of elective single embryo transfer (SET) in a Scottish fertility centre. METHODS: The views of 10 members of IVF clinic staff were assessed by means of a focus group and those of 12 couples by semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Staff were aware of the risks of twin pregnancies to mothers and babies and the need for evidence of success in SET, but had reservations about the proposed RCT. The need to subject patients to unpopular scientific procedures such as randomization and blinding conflicted with their perceived caring role. They felt it would be hard to recruit and onerous to patients but nevertheless discussed how it could be successfully mounted if necessary. They debated how to ensure that consent was fully informed, and when, and how, to randomize. Patients accepted the possibility of twins but were largely unaware of risks inherent in twin pregnancies. They saw no need for a trial and found the idea of randomization unacceptable except in younger women. They would accept SET if it became unit policy and appeared unaffected by financial considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Involving affected staff at the design stage may make it easier to conduct a SET trial in their clinics. IVF patients whose ultimate goal is pregnancy are less likely to support a trial which aims to minimize twin pregnancies.

Keywords: embryo transfer; emotions; feasibility; IVF; human.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A.M. van Peperstraten, R.P.M.G. Hermens, W.L.D.M. Nelen, P.F.M. Stalmeier, G.J. Scheffer, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer
Perceived barriers to elective single embryo transfer among IVF professionals: a national survey
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2718 - 2723.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
A.M. van Peperstraten, W.L.D.M. Nelen, R.P.M.G Hermens, L. Jansen, E. Scheenjes, D.D.M. Braat, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer
Why don't we perform elective single embryo transfer? A qualitative study among IVF patients and professionals
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 2036 - 2042.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 The Obstetrician and GynaecologistHome page
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]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
C. Sheard, S. Cox, M. Oates, G. Ndukwe, and C. Glazebrook
Impact of a multiple, IVF birth on post-partum mental health: a composite analysis
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2007; 22(7): 2058 - 2065.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Redshaw, C. Hockley, and L.L. Davidson
A qualitative study of the experience of treatment for infertility among women who successfully became pregnant
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2007; 22(1): 295 - 304.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.