ArticleHuman reproduction open2022
Facilitators and barriers for home-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfers in IVF among women and healthcare providers.
Article in Human reproduction open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Obstetric and neonatal outcomes after natural versus artificial cycle frozen embryo transfer and the role of luteal phase support: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Human reproduction update · 2023Pooled it
- The Lived Experience of Couples Undergoing In Vitro Fertilisation in Greece: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat are the facilitators and barriers concerning the implementation of home-based monitoring for natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET) from the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers in the Netherlands? SUMMARY ANSWER: The most important facilitator was optimal pregnancy chance for both the patients and healthcare providers, and the most important barriers were the risk of missing an ovulation for the patients and laboratory capacity for the healthcare providers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The share of FET cycles in IVF treatments is increasing and, therefore, it is important to optimize protocols for FET. Monitoring of ovulation, which is used in NC-FET, can be hospital-based (ultrasounds and ovulation triggering) or home-based (LH urine tests). Home-based monitoring has the advantage of being the most natural protocol for FET and provides the feeling of empowerment and discretion for patients. A systematic approach for the implementation of home-based monitoring has to start with an exploration of the perspectives of all stakeholders. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Stakeholders (patients and healthcare providers) involved in the implementation process in the Netherlands participated in the present study. Patients were represented by the Dutch Patient Organisation for Couples with Fertility Problems (FREYA) and healthcare providers were represented by gynaecologists and their society (The Netherlands Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology), embryologists and their society (The Dutch Federation of Clinical Embryology) as well as fertility doctors. A panel of experts hypothesized on barriers and facilitators for the implementation of home-based monitoring during the proposal phase of the Antarctica-2 randomized controlled trial (RCT). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING
methodsAll stakeholders were represented during the study. Two different questionnaires were developed in order to investigate facilitators and barriers for the patients and for healthcare providers. The facilitators and barriers were ranked on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most important. Based on our power analysis, we aimed for a minimum of 300 completed questionnaires for the patients and a minimum of 90 completed questionnaires for the healthcare providers. Facilitators and barriers were analysed using frequencies, mean (SD) and ranking. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 311 patients filled out the questionnaire of whom 86.8% underwent FET previously. The most important facilitator for the patients was to implement the strategy with the highest chance of pregnancy (mean 9.7; 95% CI 9.6-9.7) and the most important barrier was risk of missing ovulation (mean 8.4; 95% CI 8.2-8.6). A total of 96 healthcare providers filled out the questionnaire. According to healthcare providers, patients would accept the strategy when it causes less interference with their work and private life (mean 7.5; 95% CI 7.1-8.0) and has a low risk of missing the ovulation (mean 7.6; 95% CI 7.1-8.0). The most important facilitator for the implementation of home-based monitoring for healthcare providers was optimizing cumulative pregnancy rates (mean 8.1; 95% CI 7.7-8.4) and the most important barrier was the lack of laboratory capacity and flexibility (mean 6.4; 95% CI 5.8-7.0). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Facilitators and barriers were selected based on expert opinion. Currently, there are no validated questionnaires that aim to assess facilitators and barriers for the implementation of treatments in fertility care. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsDuring our study, we gained insight into barriers and facilitators for the implementation of home-based monitoring of NC-FET at an early phase. Early sharing and discussion of the results of this study with all stakeholders involved should stimulate a fast incorporation in guidelines, especially as key professionals in guideline development took part in this study. Also, based on our results, we can advise guideline developers to add tools to the guideline that may help overcome the implementation barriers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The Antarctica-2 RCT is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807). No authors have any competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL6414 (NTR6590).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.