Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30265305›Full record

Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2018

Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education.

Eri Maeda, Jacky Boivin, Satoshi Toyokawa, Katsuyuki Murata, Hidekazu Saito

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Elective Egg Freezing for Non-Medical Reasons (Scientific Impact Paper No. 63, 2026 Second Edition).BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eri MaedaDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Jacky BoivinCardiff Fertility Studies Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Satoshi ToyokawaDepartment of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Katsuyuki MurataDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
Hidekazu SaitoCenter of Maternal-Fetal, Neonatal and Reproductive Medicine, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are the long-term effects of fertility education on knowledge and reproductive outcome? SUMMARY ANSWER: Participants in the intervention group retained some knowledge after 2 years and the partnered women had a new child more quickly than the comparison group. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility education improves knowledge, at least in the short-term. Attitudes toward childbearing and its timing can change after exposure to educational materials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Participants were recruited via an online social research panel. In the original randomized controlled trial (RCT), knowledge of reproductive-aged participants was assessed before (T1) and immediately after (T2) receiving one of three information brochures: fertility (intervention group), healthy pre-pregnancy (focused on intake of folic acid during pregnancy, control group 1), or family policies in Japan (childcare provision, control group 2). The present follow-up study was conducted 2 years later in January 2017 (T3) with the same participants. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsOf the T1 participants (n = 1455), 383 men and 360 women (51%) responded to the T3 survey. Fertility knowledge measured with the Japanese version of the Cardiff Fertility Knowledge Scale (CFKS-J) and fertility status (e.g. new births, new medical consultations, and the timing of new birth) was assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline (T1) characteristics of the T3 participants were well balanced between groups, but T3 participants were older, married, and more educated compared to those lost to follow-up. A repeated-measures analysis of variance showed significant knowledge gains among the intervention group from T1 to T3 (11.2% and 7.0% among men and women, respectively) but no significant change over time for the control groups. There were no differences between groups in the incidence of new births or new medical consultations. However, subgroup analysis showed that timing of new births was accelerated for partnered individuals in the intervention group. Specifically, the proportion of partnered participants at T1 who had a new birth in the first year subsequent to presentation of information was higher in the intervention group versus control group 1 (folic acid): 8.8% versus 1.4% (P = 0.09) among men and 10.6% versus 2.3% (P = 0.03) among women, respectively. The odds ratios (adjusted for age) were 7.8 (95% CI: 0.86-70.7) and 5.2 (95% CI: 1.09-25.0) among men and women, respectively. The timing of births and the proportion of new births during the 2-year follow-up period in the intervention group were similar to that of control group 2 (family policy). The incidence of new medical consultation was higher in the male intervention group (12.0%) than in male control group 2 (family policy, 1.5%, P = 0.04) but similar among women in all groups. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: First, the high attrition rate may limit the generalizability of these findings for longer-term acquisition of fertility knowledge, especially when applied to younger people who were more likely to be lost to follow-up. Second, this is a 2-year follow-up study and the results may change in the longer-term. Finally, we relied on self-reported questionnaire data and there is a possibility that some women were unknowingly pregnant at T1 but this risk should be distributed equally in the three groups through randomization. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsEffects of one-time education were limited but retained beyond baseline levels. Importantly, education was found to potentially accelerate decision-making about achieving births in partnered subgroups compared to receiving healthy pre-pregnancy information. However, this finding should be confirmed in future stratified RCTs designed to evaluate effects in these subgroups. Follow-up 'booster' education sessions might help people retain knowledge and facilitate reproductive decisions for longer. In view of the high attrition rate, especially among young populations, novel educational strategies to retain young people in fertility education cohorts should be explored. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by National Center for Child Health and Development, the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation, Pfizer Health Research Foundation, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. E.M. reports joint research funds from a public interest incorporated foundation '1 more Baby Ohendan.'

Indexed as

FertilityHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Education as TopicAdultAnalysis of VarianceFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansJapanMaleSexual PartnersSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30265305
PMCPMC6195802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.