ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Navigating fertility care in the telehealth era: association of consultation mode with patient engagement and pregnancy outcomes.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo examine levels of patient engagement in fertility care by evaluating the association between initial visit type (in-person versus telehealth) and discharge with an ongoing pregnancy.
methodsRetrospective study of all new patient visits (n = 5527) at an academic fertility clinic from April 2020 to March 2021. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy with discharge to obstetrical care, stratified by treatment type: non-in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment versus IVF. Secondary outcomes included the highest level of patient engagement achieved, defined as the furthest stage in clinical assessment and treatment of infertility, if the primary outcome was not achieved.
resultsA total of 5527 patients were included (telehealth: n = 1331, in-person: n = 4196). Overall, 44.4% and 47.1% of those who had a telehealth and in-person consultation, respectively, achieved an ongoing pregnancy as a result of any fertility treatment. When stratified by those who utilized non-IVF versus IVF treatment, there was no difference in the probability of discharge with an ongoing pregnancy as a result of treatment after adjusting for age, BMI, time from first visit, AMH, and infertility diagnosis (non-IVF: aOR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73-1.57, p = 0.725; IVF: aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74-1.22, p = 0.688). Those who had an initial in-person visit were 55% more likely to complete diagnostic testing compared to those who had a telehealth visit (telehealth compared to in-person: aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.67, p < 0.001).
conclusionsAmong those who pursue infertility treatment to conceive, there is no association between initial visit type and ongoing pregnancy as a result of non-IVF or IVF treatment.
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.