ArticleBMJ open2023
Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dr Reddit? The quality and accuracy of information about IVF add-ons on Reddit.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Women's Perspectives on Adjunct Therapies in IVF: Key Considerations and Influences.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 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
9 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn vitro fertilisation (IVF) add-ons are additional procedures offered alongside an IVF cycle with the aim of improving live birth rates. They are controversial because of the paucity of evidence to support their efficacy and safety, alongside the additional financial cost they often pose to patients. Despite this, they are popular. However, there is limited qualitative research regarding their use. The aims of the VALUE Study were to understand the decision-making process surrounding using or recommending add-ons; report sources of information for add-ons; and explore concerns for safety and effectiveness when considering their use.
design'VALUE' is a qualitative semistructured interview study using inductive thematic analysis of anonymised transcriptions.
settingParticipants were recruited from a broad geographical spread across the UK and Australia from public and private clinical settings.
participantsPatients (n=25) and health professionals (embryologists (n=25) and clinicians (n=24)) were interviewed. A purposive sampling strategy was undertaken. The sampling framework included people having state-subsidised and private cycles, professionals working in public and private sectors, geographical location and professionals of all grades.
resultsPatients often made decisions about add-ons based on hope, minimising considerations of safety, efficacy or cost, whereas professionals sought the best outcomes for their patients and wanted to avoid them wasting their money. The driving forces behind add-on use differed: for patients, a professional opinion was the most influential reason, whereas for professionals, it was seen as patient driven. For both groups, applying the available evidence to individual circumstances was very challenging, especially in the sphere of IVF medicine, where the stakes are high.
conclusionsThere is scope to build on the quality of the discourse between patients and professionals. Patients describe valuing their autonomy with add-ons, but for professionals, undertaking informed consent will be critical, no matter where they sit on the spectrum regarding add-ons.
trial registrationosf.io/vnyb9.
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.