Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33866478›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2021

We are here for you: infertility clinic communication during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Holly Mehr, Tia Jackson-Bey, Michelle Vu, Victoria Lee, Christopher Herndon, Jacqueline Ho, Lusine Aghajanova, Molly M Quinn

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Holly MehrDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. holly.mehr@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4762-6601
Tia Jackson-BeyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Michelle VuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Victoria LeeDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Christopher HerndonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jacqueline HoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lusine AghajanovaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Molly M QuinnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo study how SART-member fertility clinics communicated via clinic websites during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic following publication of ASRM COVID-19 Task Force recommendations.

methodsSART-member fertility clinic websites were systematically surveyed for the presence of an REI-specific COVID-19 message (REI-CM) and analyzed for their adherence to ASRM guidance.

resultsOf the 381 active clinic websites, 249 (65.3%) had REI-specific COVID messaging. The presence of REI-CM was more common in private than in academic practices (73% vs 38%, p < 0.001) and with increasing practice volume: 38% of clinics with < 200 annual cycles vs 91% of clinics with > 1000 cycles (p < 0.001). Adherence to ASRM guidance was more common in academic than in private practices (54% vs 31%, p = 0.02). Additionally, 9% of REI-CM (n = 23) announced continued treatment regardless of a patient's clinical urgency. This messaging was more common in groups doing > 1000 cycles a year (18%, p = 0.009). Clinics treating all-comers were less likely to cite ASRM than other clinics (41% vs 62%, p = 0.045). However, 75% (n = 14) cited COVID-19 guidance from WHO, CDC, and state and local governments.

conclusionsClinic response to ASRM recommendations during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic was heterogeneous. Although academic practices were more likely to follow ASRM guidance, there was a lower extent of patient-facing messaging among academic practices than private clinics. In event of further escalations of this and future pandemics, clinics can learn from experiences to provide clear messaging to patients.

Indexed as

CommunicationCOVID-19Fertility ClinicsHumansInfertilityReproductive MedicineSARS-CoV-2TelemedicineCOVID-19Infertility treatmentPatient communicationProfessional society guidance

Identifiers

PMID33866478
PMCPMC8053232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.