ArticleSociology of health & illness2023
Patient informed choice in the age of evidence-based medicine: IVF patients' approaches to biomedical evidence and fertility treatment add-ons.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commercial Impacts on Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Views of male childhood cancer survivors on fertility preservation and restoration.Reproduction & fertility · 2025Article
- Let 'Pregnant Women Choose the Destiny for Themselves and Their Child'. How Fertility Clinic Digital Platforms Frame Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) in Spain.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
- A Qualitative Study of the Emotional and Decision-Making Experiences of Mothers Whose Daughter Undergoes Assisted Reproductive Technology with Donor Sperm.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Multichannel Recovery Potential with Activated Autologous Intraovarian Platelet-Rich Plasma and Its Derivatives.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- "It all depends on why it's red": qualitative interviews exploring patient and professional views of a traffic light system for IVF add-ons.Reproduction & fertility · 2023Article
- Patient informed choice in the age of evidence-based medicine: IVF patients' approaches to biomedical evidence and fertility treatment add-ons.Sociology of health & illness · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
With the increasing offer of fertility treatment by a largely privatised sector, which has involved the proliferation of treatment add-ons lacking evidence of effectiveness, In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) patients are expected to make informed choices on what to include in their treatment. Drawing on interviews with 51 individuals undergoing fertility treatment, this article explores patients' approaches to medical evidence interpretation and its role in their decisions to include add-ons. While most IVF patients share understandings of what counts as medical evidence, our findings show how their approaches also differ. Our analysis focuses on how patients negotiate the notion of medical evidence and its relation to other forms of experience or knowledge. We present four different approaches to evidence in IVF: (1) delegating evaluations of evidence to experts; (2) critically assessing available evidence; (3) acknowledging the process of making evidence; and (4) contextualising evidence in their lived experience of infertility. We suggest that patients' choice to include add-ons is not due to a lack of information on or understanding of evidence, but rather should be interpreted as part of the complexity of patients' experiences of infertility.
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.