Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33392395›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2020

'Your hopes can run away with your realistic expectations': a qualitative study of women and men's decision-making when undergoing multiple cycles of IVF.

T Copp, D Kvesic, D Lieberman, D Bateson, K J McCaffery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Influence of Anecdotes of IVF Success on Treatment Decision Making: An Online Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Patient-level cost analysis of subfertility pathways in the Dutch healthcare system.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  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.

T CoppSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-5884
D KvesicSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
D LiebermanCity Fertility Centre, Sydney, Australia.
D BatesonFamily Planning NSW, Ashfield, NSW, Australia.
K J McCafferySydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are the factors that contribute to the decision to continue or stop IVF treatment after multiple unsuccessful cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Factors contributing to the decision included external factors, such as their doctor's guidance, success rates, the outcomes of previous cycles and anecdotal stories of success, as well as emotional and cognitive drivers, including perception of success, hope and fear of regret. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Infertility affects about one in six Australian couples of reproductive age. Regarding IVF, some couples with a good prognosis drop out of treatment prematurely, whilst others continue for multiple cycles, despite limited chances of success. Little is known about what factors contribute to the decision to continue IVF after multiple failed cycles. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted with 22 participants. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsDoctors and nurses at an Australian private fertility clinic recruited individuals and/or couples who had undergone three or more complete unsuccessful cycles of IVF. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The majority of participants had decided to or were leaning towards continuing treatment. Participants expressed a range of common factors important in their decision-making, which were evident both within and across couples. For most, their doctor's advice and hope were key factors influencing their decision. Most participants expressed they would continue as long as there was a chance of success and until their doctor advised otherwise. Other factors included participants' perception of their likelihood of success, hearing anecdotal stories of success after multiple cycles, positive outcomes of previous cycles and fear of regret. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample was highly educated and recruited from one private Australian fertility clinic only. Many participants were also couples, which may have resulted in more homogenous data as they shared the same diagnosis for infertility and outcomes of previous cycles. Factors influencing the decision to continue or stop may differ in different sociodemographic populations and in other healthcare systems. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsGiven the important role of the doctor's guidance and patients' own perceptions of their likelihood of success, which they tended to overestimate, it is vital that fertility specialists give accurate and transparent information regarding their likelihood of success and continue to regularly communicate this throughout the IVF journey. Anecdotal stories of success against the odds appeared to be influential in the decision to continue and underpinned unrealistic perceptions of possible success. More personalized, cumulative estimates of likelihood of success may help couples with their decision-making as well as with discussions about ending treatment or setting a limit before commencing IVF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Program Grant (APP1113532). No further competing interests exist.

Indexed as

decision-makingfertilityIVFmultiple cyclespsychological wellbeing

Identifiers

PMID33392395
PMCPMC7757429

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.