Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33226349›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Pre-Conception Interventions for Subfertile Couples Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology Treatment: Modeling Analysis.

Régine Steegers-Theunissen, Annemieke Hoek, Henk Groen, Annelies Bos, Grada van den Dool, Marieke Schoonenberg, Jesper Smeenk, Eva Creutzberg, Loes Vecht, Luc Starmans and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Régine Steegers-Theunissen *Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4353-5756
Annemieke HoekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4441-7142
Henk GroenDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6629-318X
Annelies BosDepartment of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0154-8185
Grada van den DoolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital Zwijndrecht, Zwijndrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9428-0071
Marieke SchoonenbergNij Geertgen Centre for fertility Elsendorp, Elsendorp, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1442-0247
Jesper SmeenkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital Tilburg, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3053-0358
Eva CreutzbergDepartment of Gynaecology, Ferring BV Hoofddorp, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9857-0623
Loes VechtKPMG, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0762-5199
Luc StarmansKPMG, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4569-1725
Joop LavenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5444-9845
Erasmus MC · NLKPMG (Netherlands) · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLFerring Pharmaceuticals (Netherlands) · NLStichting Afasie Nederland · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 1 in 7 couples experience subfertility, many of whom have lifestyles that negatively affect fertility, such as poor nutrition, low physical activity, obesity, smoking, or alcohol consumption. Reducing lifestyle risk factors prior to pregnancy or assisted reproductive technology treatment contributes to the improvement of reproductive health, but cost-implications are unknown.

objectiveThe goal of this study was to evaluate reproductive, maternal pregnancy, and birth outcomes, as well as the costs of pre-conception lifestyle intervention programs in subfertile couples and obese women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

methodsUsing a hypothetical model based on quantitative parameters from published literature and expert opinion, we evaluated the following lifestyle intervention programs: (1) Smarter Pregnancy, an online tool; (2) LIFEstyle, which provides outpatient support for obese women; (3) concurrent use of both Smarter Pregnancy and LIFEstyle for obese women; (4) smoking cessation in men; and (5) a mindfulness mental health support program using group therapy sessions. The model population was based on data from the Netherlands.

resultsAll model-based analyses of the lifestyle interventions showed a reduction in the number of in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or intrauterine insemination treatments required to achieve pregnancy and successful birth for couples in the Netherlands. Smarter Pregnancy was modeled to have the largest increase in spontaneous pregnancy rate (13.0%) and the largest absolute reduction in potential assisted reproductive technology treatments. Among obese subfertile women, LIFEstyle was modeled to show a reduction in the occurrence of gestational diabetes, maternal hypertensive pregnancy complications, and preterm births by 4.4%, 3.8%, and 3.0%, respectively, per couple. Modeled cost savings per couple per year were €41 (US $48.66), €360 (US $427.23), €513 (US $608.80), €586 (US $695.43), and €1163 (US $1380.18) for smoking cessation, mindfulness, Smarter Pregnancy, combined Smarter Pregnancy AND LIFEstyle, and LIFEstyle interventions, respectively.

conclusionsAlthough we modeled the potential impact on reproductive outcomes and costs of fertility treatment rather than collecting real-world data, our model suggests that of the lifestyle interventions for encouraging healthier behaviors, all are likely to be cost effective and appear to have positive effects on reproductive, maternal pregnancy, and birth outcomes. Further real-world data are required to determine the cost-effectiveness of pre-conception lifestyle interventions, including mobile apps and web-based tools that help improve lifestyle, and their effects on reproductive health. We believe that further implementation of the lifestyle app Smarter Pregnancy designed for subfertile couples seeking assistance to become pregnant is likely to be cost-effective and would allow reproductive health outcomes to be collected.

Indexed as

InfertilityLife StyleReproductive Techniques, AssistedAdultExerciseFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaleNetherlandsPregnancyPregnancy Ratefertility, periconception, pregnancy chance, Smarter Pregnancy, cost-effectiveness, nutrition, obesity, IVF treatmentmobile and web-based lifestyle apps

Identifiers

PMID33226349
PMCPMC7721553
OpenAlexW3110006966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.