Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37968233›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2024

What is bad news in fertility care? A qualitative analysis of staff and patients' accounts of bad and challenging news in fertility care.

S Gameiro, E Adcock, C Graterol Munoz, M O'Hanrahan, A D'Angelo, J Boivin

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06587360 (Protocol for a Realist Evaluation and Feasibility RCT), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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.

NCT06587360 narecruitingnot on this map

Protocol for a Realist Evaluation and Feasibility RCT: Understanding and Developing a SPIKES-based eLearning Training Course Called fertiShare to Support Sharing Bad News Encounters Between Fertility Healthcare Professionals (FHPs) and Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorCardiff UniversityRan2024 to 2026Enrolled420ConditionsInfertility Assisted Reproductive TechnologyArmsfertiShare intervention - sharing bad news eLearning course, fertiShare control - basic communication skills eLearning course
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S GameiroCardiff Fertility and Reproductive Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2496-2004
E AdcockSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.
C Graterol MunozSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.
M O'HanrahanSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.
A D'AngeloSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1505-8489
J BoivinCardiff Fertility and Reproductive Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9498-1708
Cardiff University · GBSwansea Bay University Health Board · GB

Funding

Cardiff University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat do fertility staff and patients think is bad news in fertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Staff and patients agree bad news is any news that makes patients less likely to achieve parenthood spontaneously or access and do successful treatment, but their appraisals of how bad the news is are differently influenced by specific news features and the context of its delivery. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Bad news is common in fertility care, but staff feel unprepared to share it and four in 10 patients react to it with unanticipated emotional or physical reactions. Research has paid much attention to how bad news should be shared, but considerably less to what news is perceived as bad, despite the fact this may dictate elements of its delivery. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Two cross-sectional, online, mixed-method surveys (active 7 January-16 July 2022) were distributed to fertility staff and patients across the UK and Europe. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsStaff inclusion criteria were being a healthcare professional working in fertility care and having experience of sharing bad news at least once a month. Patients' inclusion criteria were being adults and having had a conversation in which staff shared or explained bad news concerning their fertility care within the last 2 months. Surveys were created in English using Qualtrics, reviewed by patients and healthcare professionals, and distributed via social media, Prolific, fertility organizations, and scientific societies. Patients were asked, regarding the last time bad news were shared with them, 'What was the bad news?' and 'What other news would you consider bad news in fertility care?'. Staff were asked to 'List the three most challenging topics of bad news you share with your patients'. Staff and patient data were separately thematically analysed to produce basic codes, organized into sub-themes and themes. Themes emerging from patients' and staff data were compared and synthesized into meta themes. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Three hundred thirty-four staff accessed the survey, 286 consented, and 217 completed (65% completion rate). Three hundred forty-four patients accessed the survey, 304 consented, and 222 completed (64% completion rate). Eighty-five percent of participants were women, 62% resided in Europe, and 59% were in private care. Average staff age was 45.2 (SD = 12.0), 44% were embryologists or lab technicians, 40% were clinicians (doctors, consultants, or physicians), and 8% nurses or midwifes. Average patient age was 32.2 (SD = 6.4) and 54% had children. Staff answers originated 100 codes, 19 sub-themes and six themes. Patients' answers produced 196 codes, 34 sub-themes, and 7 themes. Staff and patient themes were integrated into three meta-themes reflecting main topics of bad news. These were Diagnosis and negative treatment events and outcomes, Inability to do (more) treatment, and Care and patient factors disrupting communication. Staff and patients agreed that some news features (uncertain, disruptive, definitive) made news more challenging but disagreed in relation to other features (e.g. unexpected/expected). Patient factors made bad news more challenging to staff (e.g. difficult emotions) and care factors made bad news more challenging to patients (e.g. disorganized care). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Participants were self-selected, and most were women from private European clinics. Questions differed for staff and patients, focused on subjective perceptions of news, and did not measure news impact. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThe badness of fertility news is not only a product of the extent to which the news compromises parenthood goals but also of its features (timing, nature, number) and the context in which the news is delivered. Guidance on sharing bad news in fertility care needs to go beyond easing the process for patients to also consider staff experiences. Guidance may need to be tailored to news features and context. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Cardiff University funded the research. S.G., J.B., O'.H., and A.D. report funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) to develop fertiShare: a sharing bad news eLearning course for fertility care. fertiShare will be distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). No other conflicts are reported in relation to this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationPhysiciansAdultChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFertilityHealth PersonnelHumansMaleappraisalsbad newshealthcare communicationqualitative researchsharing bad newssurvey research

Identifiers

PMID37968233
PMCPMC10767966
OpenAlexW4388736367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.