Trial reportBMC health services research2025
Barriers and facilitators to potential nationwide implementation of fertility health awareness strategies in young married couples in Singapore: an implementation study.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, the total fertility rate has declined over the years, partly attributable to limited public awareness of age-related fertility decline. To address this, we conducted an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type I, three-arm, open-label randomised clinical trial (RCT) to evaluate the effects of fertility health screening (FHS) and fertility awareness tools (FAT) on knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to childbearing. This study reports the implementation outcomes, barriers, and facilitators to potential nationwide implementation of these two interventions.
methodThe study comprised a three-arm RCT and a qualitative component involving individual semi-structured interviews conducted from January 2021 to March 2024. Eligible participants were married, childless heterosexual couples with a female partner aged between 25 and 34 years. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) who implemented the interventions, along with purposively selected couples, participated in the interviews. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. Completion of each FHS component was verified against medical records, and data used to inform cost was collected via a productivity loss survey and Time Driven Activity Based Costing.
resultsA total of 778 heterosexual couples were randomised in this three-arm RCT. Of these, 29 couples and 20 HCPs took part in the interviews. FHS was perceived as valuable for family planning, while views on FAT were mixed. Both interventions demonstrated high fidelity. HCPs spent a median of 219 min delivering FHS, which costs on average $83.36 per couple. Each couple also incurred a median total cost of productivity loss and transportation of $663.55 over all FHS visits. Key facilitators of FHS were the use of evidence-based testing and professional guidance, whereas resource and time constraints were notable barriers. Key barriers for FAT included the lack of content novelty and access to health screening though its structured design was a facilitator.
conclusionBoth FHS and FAT were deemed acceptable and feasible by couples and HCPs. Cost and staffing emerged as significant barriers to broader implementation and scalability. These findings offer insights into translating educational and fertility awareness interventions into practice and guiding future nationwide and international implementation efforts.
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.