Investigation of staff and patients’ opinions of a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer

Maureen Porter,1 and Siladitya Bhattacharya

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: m.a.porter{at}abdn.ac.uk


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. Interview schedule:...
 Appendix 2. Focus group...
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
BACKGROUND: In the context of mounting concern about the risks of twin pregnancies resulting from IVF, this study aimed to assess staff and patients’ attitudes towards a proposed randomized controlled trial (RCT) of elective single embryo transfer (SET) in a Scottish fertility centre. METHODS: The views of 10 members of IVF clinic staff were assessed by means of a focus group and those of 12 couples by semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Staff were aware of the risks of twin pregnancies to mothers and babies and the need for evidence of success in SET, but had reservations about the proposed RCT. The need to subject patients to unpopular scientific procedures such as randomization and blinding conflicted with their perceived caring role. They felt it would be hard to recruit and onerous to patients but nevertheless discussed how it could be successfully mounted if necessary. They debated how to ensure that consent was fully informed, and when, and how, to randomize. Patients accepted the possibility of twins but were largely unaware of risks inherent in twin pregnancies. They saw no need for a trial and found the idea of randomization unacceptable except in younger women. They would accept SET if it became unit policy and appeared unaffected by financial considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Involving affected staff at the design stage may make it easier to conduct a SET trial in their clinics. IVF patients whose ultimate goal is pregnancy are less likely to support a trial which aims to minimize twin pregnancies.

Key words: embryo transfer/emotions/feasibility/IVF/human


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. Interview schedule:...
 Appendix 2. Focus group...
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
IVF is one of the treatments of choice for couples with persistent infertility. Traditionally it has been customary to transfer multiple embryos in IVF in order to optimize pregnancy rates. However, this practice is associated with a high risk of multiple pregnancy, leading to a significant increase in maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, as well as health service costs (ESHRE Campus Report, 2001Go; Gerris et al., 2002Go). Even with the current UK practice of replacing only two embryos within the uterus, a 25% twin rate is the norm.

A number of trials have shown that elective single embryo transfer (SET) can significantly reduce the incidence of twins and higher order pregnancies without compromising cumulative live birth rates per couple (Gerris et al., 1999Go; Martikainen et al., 2001Go; Thurin et al., 2004Go). This policy is opposed by those who fear a reduction in success rates per treatment. Although common in some Northern European countries, elective SET is far from being universally accepted in the UK and other parts of the world (Bhattacharya and Templeton, 2004Go) where the bulk of IVF treatment is self-funded.

Published data from observational studies suggest that despite awareness of the risks, some couples find the prospect of a twin birth quite acceptable and indeed preferable to childlessness (Gleicher et al., 1995Go; Goldfarb et al., 1996Go). Even the minority of couples who favoured SET felt that it would only be acceptable if existing pregnancy rates were maintained (Murray et al., 2004Go).

Thus, in the current climate, more information is necessary before SET can be adopted into routine clinical practice. Its clinical and cost-effectiveness as well as acceptability needs to be proven in the context of more multi-centred randomized controlled trials (RCT) (Ozturk et al., 2001Go). The quality of such trials would be enhanced by increased methodological rigour and high levels of participation on the part of the eligible population. However, it is not known whether it would be possible to recruit couples to such a trial in the future. It is not unusual for clinical trials to be delayed or abandoned because of inability to recruit sufficient subjects in the time available (Centre for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation, 2004) or lack of equipoise among patients and staff (Edwards et al., 1998Go; Lilford, 2003Go). The methodological literature relating to RCTs in infertility is limited, focusing mainly on statistical issues. There has been little work on the patient's perspective and factors influencing their decision to participate in a trial. Similarly, data about staff attitudes towards enrolling fertility patients in randomized trials are scarce. Only Hartshorne and Lilford (2002)Go have looked at the differing attitudes of staff and patients in a particular aspect of IVF treatment.

The aim of this study was to explore the views of staff and couples towards a proposed trial comparing SET with double embryo transfer (DET), and to ascertain what would be the most acceptable trial design. Qualitative methods are the best means of exploring views and issues and formulating theories about hitherto unexamined behaviour (Mason, 2002Go). As the spotlight was on ideas rather than experiences, it was felt that focus group discussions (FGD) would provide staff and patients with a relatively safe environment in which to share ideas, beliefs and attitudes in the company of people in a similar situation (Morgan, 1993Go). According to Madriz (2000)Go the collective nature of the group interview decreases the power of the interviewer relative to the participants and validates their choices and experiences. Focus groups have already proved a useful vehicle for involving patients in the design of trials of contentious treatments (Koops and Lindley, 2002Go).


    Materials and methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. Interview schedule:...
 Appendix 2. Focus group...
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
The study was conducted at the main site of the proposed RCT, the Aberdeen Assisted Reproduction Unit in the north east of Scotland. This is a university-funded unit within Aberdeen Fertility Centre carrying out 450 IVF cycles per year of which half are funded by the health authority and half by patients themselves. As this study was intended to improve the design of the RCT a minimum of two focus groups was planned, one for staff and one or more for patients, each consisting of 10–12 members. Staff and patients were contacted by letter after obtaining consent from the local ethics committee. The intended size of the group was indicated and most of the 26 staff invited to discuss among themselves and agree a maximum of 10 who wished to attend. The two consultants were not included as they were instigators of the proposed trial. Attendees represented the professional groups involved in IVF (doctors, nurses, embryologists and counsellors) and included the individuals who had day-to-day contact with patients. As these staff meet on a weekly basis for discussion of cases and other issues within the clinic, they are used to putting their views forward and it was not anticipated that the setting of a focus group would be unusual or threatening. The discussion was co-ordinated by a researcher with experience of leading FGD and an assistant, both of whom were known to the participants. The topics were indicated in the information letter and are shown in Appendix 1. The session lasted 2 hours and was tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Approximately 20 couples were selected at random from those on the waiting list for IVF treatment. We felt that it was important to elicit couples’ views about a proposed trial prior to exposure to any IVF treatment and associated stress. They were not currently involved in any other research project and were informed of the study by letter. Only one couple agreed to participate in a FGD. As topics such as equipoise and randomization have proved difficult for patients to grasp when asked to participate in a trial (Mills et al., 2003Go) it was thought that a FGD would enable couples to share ideas and learn from one another about a hypothetical situation. However, a second attempt to recruit couples through the clinic yielded no more participants, and this approach was abandoned in favour of individual interviews with the first 12 couples who agreed. It was felt that this would be sufficient to obtain a wide range of views on these issues. Although sensitive topics are not ideal material for FGD and this response might have been predicted (Madriz, 2000Go), the main objection seemed to be the inconvenience of attending a specially convened evening meeting. After explaining the study in detail and obtaining their written consent, couples were interviewed together immediately after their initial visit prior to starting their first IVF cycle. Interviews were conducted by an experienced non-clinical researcher (M.P.) and lasted 15–20 min (see Appendix 2). The nature of the interviews was dictated by constraints on couples’ time and their preference for an interview following a clinic consultation. As this lasted >1 hour, consecutive individual interviews were deemed too tiring and time-consuming. The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed in full and analysed thematically using an inductive approach. One researcher (M.P.) coded all transcripts including that of the FGD by question first, and the results were then examined for consistent themes. Deviant cases were also examined to see how they fitted into or diverged from the emerging themes. Consistency was achieved by having the second researcher (S.B.) examine some of the transcripts and discuss the codes assigned.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. Interview schedule:...
 Appendix 2. Focus group...
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Three issues that were discussed by all respondents and which were particularly relevant for the design of any RCT are included: risk of twins, need for RCT and randomization. Quotes are taken verbatim from transcripts. Staff are denoted by profession and number (Midwife 1) and patients by number (Male 2 or Couple 3). M denotes male; F denotes female.

Demographic profile of respondents
Three embryologists, three clinicians (qualified gynaecologists specializing in infertility and assisted reproduction), three nursing sisters and a counsellor were included in the staff group. Only one member of staff was male. Their ages ranged from approximately 25 to 55 years. The 12 couples had a mean duration of infertility of 4.5 years and the women's ages ranged from 32 to 42 years with a mean of 37.5. Half of the men worked in white-collar and half in manual jobs; all of the women worked in white-collar jobs. Five of the couples had male factor infertility alone, two ovulatory factors alone, one unexplained, one tubal and three a combination of factors.

Risks of twins
Staff views
Staff were well aware of the reported risks to mothers and babies associated with twin pregnancies. Most had direct experience of couples having problems with twin pregnancies, although physical and mental disabilities were not mentioned. ‘They have either lost them at various stages, or one twin has died or both in the early stages of the pregnancies, 16–20 weeks. So the trauma for the couples going through that is quite horrendous.’ (Midwife 1). They varied in how concerned they were personally, but agreed that patients did not want to know about the risks of twin and higher order pregnancies, as the following interchange shows: ‘... there is some responsibility on us. We should put across to them that there are some complications associated with having two or more babies ...’ (Doctor 2). ‘They can hear what you have said but they are not sort of listening. They just say ‘Yes, yes, yes, two embryos please.’’ (Embryologist 1). Staff felt that patients did not believe that the risks applied to them and saw two babies as a bonus, precluding the need for further treatment. Staff cited cases where fruitless efforts had been made to dissuade couples from having three embryos replaced. As one midwife said: ‘... I think it would be very hard to persuade couples to go for one embryo transfer because I think the kind of thinking with the fertility treatment is that if you get two children, then you don't have to come back and do the treatment again. There is the plus side for them in that sense.’

Patients’ views
Many couples were unaware that twin pregnancies could be risky for mother and babies though most were aware of the risks of higher order pregnancies. Patient information leaflets used in the clinic, perhaps aiming to discourage patients from requesting three embryos, appear to stress the potential complications in triplets rather than twins. ‘I don't think from one to two is a problem. OK I know it is a slightly more hazardous pregnancy but, or more problems with a twin pregnancy but I wouldn't think that one each time was needed at all.’ (Male 9). When asked if they had been warned of ‘the risks’ of twin pregnancies, most answered in terms of ‘the chances’ of conceiving twins. ‘The only thing they really mentioned was the percentage, you know the chances of it happening. No mention of any risks. Risks haven't been mentioned as such.’ (Female 3). Generally speaking the health risks had not been discussed with them during their consultations with doctors or nurses and some seemed surprised to hear of risks from the researcher. Three patients in health-related professions were aware that twin pregnancies carried more risks for mothers and babies alike and another couple had been informed by a recent television programme.

Most couples were also unaware that the chances of bearing twins after having two embryos replaced varied from woman to woman and were highest among those younger women having their first treatment cycle. Most had considered only the relevance of having a history of twins in their own or their partner's family. Seemingly, all had discussed and accepted the possibility of twins; ‘Well we haven't got children and to have children we are going to have to put up with the risk. If it is twins, fine. If not, one would be fine.’ (Male 11). They joked that twins would forestall the need for undergoing repeated IVF cycles but did not express a preference for twins. The following interchange is typical: ‘F: We've said two embryos. M: But if it was the case that from that it was twins, we would just accept that ... ultimately we would prefer two children anyway ... if they came at the same time ... F: That's a bonus.’ (Couple 3). All believed that replacing two embryos increased, and possibly doubled, the chance of becoming pregnant.

Need for RCT of SET
Staff views
Staff debated whether there was an increased incidence of twins now, and were divided on the need for a RCT. One argument was that the problems associated with twins and twin pregnancies were so great that everyone should be given SET as a matter of policy, without the need for a trial. ‘But I think just of late, you know the last few months, we have actually had a few twin pregnancies, the demise of several twin pregnancies and it has made me think. Yeah this really should be, it's the best thing. Go for one embryo transfer and hopefully, not eliminate multiple pregnancies, but certainly limit them quite drastically.’ (Embryologist 3). Against this was the view that the problems of twin pregnancies had been exaggerated and no trial was necessary: ‘... I think it is quite difficult to tell them that twin pregnancies show high risk. It isn't so high risk to be honest. OK it is higher risk, but not so much ... it's quite difficult to lie related to the evidence; to tell them that it was suggested to transfer one embryo, because the evidence says something different.’ (Doctor 3).

Two further arguments against the trial were that the few patients coming to the clinic who were concerned about twins or had religious reservations, should be allowed to have SET and their experience compared with those having two embryos replaced (patient preference). ‘There are some patients, a few, not many and they are concerned about twins. So I think that this group of patients is quite keen to ... because they would accept there is security.’ (Doctor 3). Alternatively, those most likely to have twins, e.g. younger women or ICSI patients, could be selected and offered SET: ‘Why do the trial? ... I would have thought from the stats that's on our computers we could predict the majority, I mean not all, but a great proportion of all these twins that we are having. And these are the people that we need to counsel further, not put them in any trial. Just say ‘You are young, you are having ICSI or whatever, a high proportion, if we put back two good quality embryos, you are going to have twins. Could you please discuss this?’’ (Embryologist 1). Others thought a trial was pointless because patients had the right to accept the risks and have as many embryos replaced as they wish within reason. ‘I think it is something about choice; that people want choice and if they think that choice is being taken away, however good the reasons for that ... they find that quite difficult and say ‘Well it's my choice to have ...’’ (Midwife 2). It was thought that they would not listen to evidence if presented with it. ‘I think evidence is always a good thing to have ... you can present it, but the difficulty is they never think it is going to happen to them ... people are so desperate really to have a child, they don't necessarily accept it, even though you might present a really good case...’ (Doctor 2).

All staff mentioned practical problems which made such a trial difficult to mount and possibly unethical. These included convincing people to participate, getting informed consent, ‘blinding’ staff, particularly embryologists, the amount of counselling required, number of replacement cycles women would undergo, financial arrangements and incentives, and potentially high drop-out rates. It was felt that there would be wastage of embryos in subsequent treatment cycles, less success with frozen embryos, spare embryos left at the end of the trial and a deleterious effect on the unit's success rate. Staff were also very concerned about the psychological effects of such a trial on vulnerable patients.

Many of the staff acknowledged that a RCT would give them much-needed evidence about whether one embryo could eventually produce success rates comparable with two, but without the high incidence of twins. ‘... certainly on labour ward you see them all the time and you see horrendous complications with multiple pregnancies and I think it is an extremely good idea to do a trial, so that at least then we can say we have done a trial and these are the results. And then go by the results in implementing certain policies.’ (Doctor 1). They stressed the need to do a proper trial and not one which could be rejected by referees on scientific grounds. One said of patient preference trials ‘... that is going to bias your study completely because then you are saying you opt for one or two ... there is no point in doing that study because your results are not telling you much ...’ (Doctor 2); ‘You would need perfect statistics to get you out of a hole.’ (Embryologist 2).

Nevertheless, they remained uncomfortable with some aspects of a RCT. They thought it would be ‘cruel’, ‘deceptive’ or ‘dishonest’ to withhold information from patients on how many embryos they were getting at the time of treatment. It was also thought that those whose treatment failed would be angry and resentful towards the staff. However, at the end of a long discussion and consideration of many alternative models, staff, with one dissenter, accepted the need for a trial. ‘But we've discussed that. That came in at the beginning and we went ‘Eek!’’ (Embryologist 1); ‘Yes, but we've talked through more things.’ (Doctor 2); ‘And we've come back to that.’ (Midwife 3).

Patients’ views
After the burden of twin pregnancies had been explained, couples were asked whether they thought the clinic in Aberdeen should be taking steps to reduce the incidence of twins. None thought that it should. All apparently knew of healthy twins and very satisfied parents and thus did not believe this to be a problem sufficient to merit concerted action. ‘M: No, I think the clinic should be advising people as they do you know. F: I think it's the couple's decision at the end of the day. I don't see a huge risk with twins. M: No, it's not a huge risk, but it is an increased risk’ (Couple 7). However, several respondents asked the interviewer just how high were the risks of having twins who were premature or in poor health. Others thought the sacrifice in terms of success rates was too high. ‘I think the success rate would be the biggest factor wouldn't it? Because with two embryos then there must be a greater success rate because you've got a better chance because there is two.’ (Female 3).

During the interviews a prospective controlled trial was described where couples are randomly assigned to receive one or two embryos after IVF and respondents were asked for their reactions. Objections to one embryo were that it reduced the chances of success and most felt that because of their age that was unacceptable. Quite a few thought that this was their last hope of conceiving and felt that they had to do all they could to maximize the chances of success. ‘M: It's too much emotion, too much stress. We want this to work and there's not really an option of putting things at risk or cutting your odds. F: I mean I don't want to end up with multiples of more than two really because of the risks involved for both myself and the baby. But I wouldn't want just one embryo put in, giving me just that one chance ...’ (Couple 2). Age was mentioned by nearly everyone, many saying that this trial might be more acceptable to younger patients or to those with other treatment options available to them. ‘I think if I was younger I would be more accepting of that ... I think I would find that quite hard really, if there were two good eggs and they said ‘Sorry, we're only putting one in’. I think I wouldn't like that.’ (Female 9). One couple who were younger than most said that they would be willing to accept the risk of only having one embryo replaced at a time.

Evidence demonstrating that comparable success rates could be reached after multiple embryo transfers of fresh followed by frozen embryos did not make the prospect of SET any more acceptable. Both men and women expressed concerns about the physical and psychological effects of increased length of treatment associated with SET. ‘Same number in the end? Well as I say it comes down to the fact that the wife is having to go through all that treatment again and injections and all that sort of thing.’ (Male 11). Several women were worried about the potential carcinogenicity of drugs used during IVF treatment. They also thought that the need for multiple visits to the clinic would create practical difficulties, such as getting time off work. Both men and women said that although they had never experienced it, they thought the treatment would be stressful and had no wish to prolong it.

Finances were not the issue: the idea of having more frozen embryo replacement cycles for the same price did not make the prospect of SET any more acceptable. ‘If you were to say to me pay £2000 and have one at a time or have two and increase the chances of falling pregnant and even if you doubled the price, I would still take double the price, because of the situation we are in; the 35–40 year old age group.’ (Male 2). For those whose treatment was funded by the National Health Service, it was envisaged that treatment would continue for a long time to achieve equivalence (i.e. the replacement of up to six embryos). Those who were funding themselves felt that the cost of IVF was sufficiently large that it should guarantee them the greatest possibility of conception. Though it would not be acceptable to them, a number of couples said that they thought a financial incentive would be necessary to make anyone participate in such a trial. ‘I think it would be important with younger people. I don't think they would be concerned about time but maybe the finances are part of the equation ... I really think that financial pressure would make some people go into the trial.’ (Female 12).

Randomization
Staff views
There was lively discussion about the possibility of randomizing patients to receive one or two embryos at the time of transfer and blinding patients and/or staff to the number of embryos being replaced. The favourable attitude of most couples towards twins was thought to be a barrier to recruitment. Even if it were possible, withholding information on the number of embryos replaced was deemed unacceptably ‘cruel’. It could be justified only in the most rigorous scientific sense, which did not fit with staff's caring role, as is apparent from this interchange:

M.P.:
What is the objection (to blinding patients)? Is it people's response or is it scientific?

Emb. 1:
It is not that. It is the fact that you are pulling the wool over their eyes basically.

Mid. 2:
It's not clinical.

Emb. 1:
You are not taking the patient into your confidence.

Emb. 3:
You are hiding something. You are saying ‘you may only get one athough ...’

Mid. 3:
... not telling them how many embryos there is, that's deliberate deception.

Mid. 2:
That's science and laboratories. That's not nice

Some felt it was inappropriate to offer clients what they perceived to be a less than optimum service. There were concerns about the amount of information patients' would have to take in during a short space of time; how able they would be to give informed consent or leave the trial for any reason. Couples whose first cycle had failed were expected to have strong opinions about the trial by the time of the second cycle. It was also felt that some might agree to participate for the ‘wrong’ (i.e. financial) reasons and then withdraw at the last moment.

Patients’ views
Confronted with the concept in the abstract, patients found it hard to understand. Having grasped it, they did not like the idea of randomization, but not for the reasons the professionals anticipated. ‘I think your name being picked out of a hat, that's not the best answer, especially if you're paying out money for treatment. Why should you be in a draw, if you know what I mean?’ (Male 11). They were less worried about the possibility of a single embryo transfer than by what they perceived as the inherent unfairness of randomization. Several women said that they would resent it if they were assigned one embryo and knew of others who had received two. ‘F: I don't think I would be very happy at being selected, not having the choice and I think there should be, either there's a rule and everybody follows it and everybody understands the reasons, or there is a choice and you can make an informed decision. But I wouldn't like to think that somebody else you know got two and I had been randomly assigned to have either one or two. M: I struggle to see what would be the benefit.’ (Couple 12). Others mentioned the dismay they would feel if treatment failed and they knew they had lost the opportunity to have a second good quality embryo replaced at the same time due to random assignation. They found the prospect of a global SET Unit policy more acceptable. ‘I think I possibly wouldn't, because I would feel disadvantaged I suppose if I was one of the people selected to perhaps just have one egg transfer ... if we got to the stage where the government decided that it is only one egg transfer allowed, then so be it. We would accept it.’ (Female 6). None found the concept of ‘blinding’ acceptable. Most felt that they would want to know the number of embryos transferred at the time, if not before, and even soon afterwards was too late.


    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. Interview schedule:...
 Appendix 2. Focus group...
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
This study, performed in preparation for a randomized trial of SET, exposed the discomfort of staff and patients with some practical and ethical issues. Most IVF Unit staff were concerned about the risks associated with twins and wanted SET to be evaluated, but not necessarily by means of a double-blind RCT. Clinicians were more likely to favour a rigorous randomized design than nursing staff or embryologists, who were worried that the trial might compromise patient care. As staff had predicted, patients were untroubled by the risk of twins posed by a DET policy. They saw no need for the proposed trial and were not keen to participate, even if financial inducements were available. They objected to randomization and would only accept SET if it were legally enforced.

Previous publications have deplored the lack of adequately designed large randomized trials in infertility (Johnson et al., 2003Go). Involving patients and staff in the design of research studies is an ideal which is gaining currency among researchers and funding institutions (Ghersi, 2002Go; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2002Go), but has yet to become popular in assisted reproduction. To our knowledge this is the first study to use qualitative means in order to explore the attitudes of staff and patients towards a proposed RCT. The focus group mirrored the dynamics of regular staff meetings and provided a non-threatening context for the staff to air their views. However, by its very nature it may have allowed the most vocal to have their say at the expense of the least. The opinions voiced by staff and patients were useful in terms of identifying potential barriers to mounting a SET trial, and were helpful in informing the final trial design.

This study has several limitations. Contrary to the original design, all data from couples were obtained by means of joint interviews. While there was sometimes a tendency for one partner to dominate and the other to concur, couples’ opinions rarely differed on major issues like randomization or the need for a trial. Couples who differed initially on the risks involved in twin pregnancies quickly reached agreement. This sort of negotiated account is no less valid for being a joint production of the interview situation (Potter and Wetherell, 1994Go) and probably reflects what would occur if couples were asked to participate in an actual trial of SET. Consecutive sampling resulted in the selection of an older group than would be approached in such a trial. Respondents argued that age was the main deterrent to a trial which could potentially lengthen treatment due to the need for multiple frozen SET. A younger cohort might have been more positive. As couples had limited knowledge of the risks of twins, no conception of a randomized controlled trial, and concerns about costs, these had to be explained by the interviewer. It was made clear to the couples that this person was not the instigator of the proposed trial. Thus, it is unlikely that her identification with the clinic had a major effect on couples’ views of the proposed trial. Although the exclusion of two senior clinicians from the FGD means that the results cannot be generalized to all grades of staff, it may have encouraged others to freely express their views. Those likely to be more involved with recruiting and randomizing patients had the opportunity to make critical but constructive comments.

Our results support those from previous quantitative studies which have reported that patients are aware of, and accept the risks associated with, twins (Gleicher et al., 1995Go; Goldfarb et al., 1996Go; Murray et al., 2004Go). The interview context unveiled more subtle differences of risk perception between staff and patients. We found confusion of ‘risk’ and ‘chance’, with staff believing they were discussing the ‘maternal and perinatal risks’ of twin pregnancies and patients interpreting this as the ‘chance’ of having twins. This need for greater clarification in the context of patient information and education has been noted before (Grobman et al., 2001Go; Kenyon and Dixon-Woods, 2004Go).

Couples’ responses support the conclusions of previous studies which have reported patients’ lack of understanding of randomization (Featherstone and Donovan, 2002Go; Robinson et al., 2004Go) and inability to see how it could be justified (Kerr et al., 2004Go). Given their lack of enthusiasm about the research question and limited insight into the research methodology, the role of the patients in designing a ‘user friendly’ trial was not realized. It is possible that as long as patients readily accept the possibility of twins, any potential benefits for patient involvement in a trial aimed at reducing risk will be limited. For those couples who did appreciate the need for the trial, the main barrier to participation appeared to be women's age. Despite the prospect of comparable live birth rates, couples did not feel they had sufficient time to accept multiple frozen embryo transfers as part of a SET policy.

Staff demonstrated some differences along professional lines. Though all prioritized patient wellbeing, embryologists and nurses perceived a distinct conflict in terms of their roles as care providers versus potential researchers. They therefore felt uncomfortable with blinding patients in the context of the proposed trial. All were concerned that any study undertaken should be scientifically sound, and eventually talked themselves back to a position of support for a RCT (which was rejected initially), because they could see no other alternative. Though not asked to agree, they moved towards consensus on how the trial might be mounted. It is possible that this was because the FGD facilitator was known to them; in other circumstances their final position may have been different. While attitudes of staff in different IVF units may vary, our results suggest that, from the point of view of conducting any RCT, it would probably be beneficial to involve staff early in the development of the protocol. Where numbers of participants are sufficiently large, FGD among separate professional groups might provide different perspectives and raise more issues pertinent to them (Kreuger and Casey, 2000Go). Interviews with those not included in FGD might also demonstrate dissenting views and improve validity.

Despite the general consensus in Europe of the need to minimize iatrogenic multiple pregnancies, this study has highlighted the misgivings among staff and patients in an IVF unit about a proposed trial of SET. It has also identified a lack of understanding and suspicion of crucial factors such as randomization and blinding which contribute to the scientific rigour of a trial. Despite this, staff seemed prepared to play a role in mounting a trial, provided practical difficulties could be overcome. Couples were more negative in their attitudes towards a proposed trial and their input into study design was limited.


    Appendix 1. Interview schedule: IVF patients
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. Interview schedule:...
 Appendix 2. Focus group...
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. I understand that you're just about to start your IVF treatment;
    How long have you been waiting for that?

  2. What treatments have you had so far?
  3. Do you feel that you have other options as well as IVF?
    Have you explored any of these options?

  4. At present the policy in Aberdeen is to put back two embryos if possible.
    How do you feel about that? And do you feel the same?

  5. Some women undergoing this treatment have more chance of having twins than others. Have you had any thoughts on your own chances of getting twins or even triplets?
    How do you feel about that? And do you feel the same?

  6. How many embryos would you like them to put back if you had the choice?
    Why is that?

  7. Has anyone explained to you the risks associated with twins for the mother during pregnancy or for the babies?
    If so, what is your understanding of those risks?

  8. If not, explain some.
  9. How do you feel about that? And do you feel the same?
  10. Do you think that we, as a clinic, should be taking steps to reduce the risk of IVF patients getting twins?
  11. The best way to be certain of reducing the risk of twins is to put back only one embryo at a time. That is what clinics in some parts of Europe are now doing.
    How would you feel about that? Do you feel the same?

  12. A Swedish study has recently shown that over time the same success rates can be achieved by putting back one embryo at a time, rather than two. Obviously that means more treatment sessions but less risk of twins.
    How do you feel about that? Do you feel the same?

  13. We are also considering the possibility of doing a trial of putting back one or two embryos during IVF to see which is best.
    Does that sound like a good idea?

  14. How would you feel about being randomly assigned either one embryo or two at the time of transfer?
    Why is that?

  15. Would you feel happier about taking part in such a study if you were offered a financial package which equalized the cost of egg recovery, transfers and freezing between the two arms? Explain if necessary.
Is there anything you would like to add? Anything you feel strongly about?


    Appendix 2. Focus group questions: professionals
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. Interview schedule:...
 Appendix 2. Focus group...
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Hello, I am M.P. For the benefit of those who do not know me, I am a sociologist working with {S.B.} on various infertility projects funded by CSO and Wellcome. I would like to introduce my assistant, {A}. She will be taking notes as a back-up to the tape recorder and to remind me of what has been said. I will also be asking her to sum up at the end of the discussion.

The purpose of today's meeting is to ascertain your views on a proposed multi-centred RCT of replacing one versus two embryos during IVF.

Background: The risks of twin pregnancies for mothers and babies have been highlighted recently, leading to a call for one embryo rather than two or more to be replaced each time. But we do not know how possible this will be, how acceptable to patients and staff, or what will be the clinical or economic costs.

The proposed RCT would address some of these questions. I should like to stress that we believe there are both advantages and disadvantages to replacing one embryo rather than two and we do not have any views on the proposed RCT at this point. We are simply trying to come up with a design which is as acceptable as possible to most of those involved.

Before we start our discussion, there are a couple of house-rules which I should mention.

Confidentiality: Tape-recording will be anonymous and there will be no attempt to identify speakers when listening to the tape or transcribing. But it's obviously not anonymous here and I would ask that you keep what is said confidential. We want people to feel free to express their views without worrying that these will be heard outside these four walls at a later date.

Practicalities: I would ask that you try to wait until one speaker has finished before speaking yourself. We will not be able to hear round the table or on the tape-recorder if more than one person speaks at the same time. If things get heated and everyone is talking at once I will raise my hand and ask you to stop.

Questions

(Opening)

1. Can I ask you, as we go round the table, to say your first name and describe your role in infertility treatment?
(Introductory)
2. (a) How did you hear about the proposed single embryo trial?
(or)
2. (b) Have you ever been involved in a RCT before in the course of your work?
(Transition)
3. Thinking back to when you first heard about the RCT, what was your immediate reaction?
4. What are the most important issues for patients undergoing IVF?
(Key)
5. At present the policy in Aberdeen is to put back two embryos if possible; how do you feel about the risks of twin pregnancy?
6. Now I would like to get your opinions on certain practical aspects of the proposed RCT. I will suggest one way that it might be done but should stress that nothing has been decided yet.
  1. Who? Women aged 37 years and under in first or second cycle of treatment with three or more good embryos will be eligible for inclusion.
  2. Recruitment? It is hoped to recruit 70 patients over 2 years at each of the 10 centres. Those with strong preferences will be excluded. ???
  3. Randomization? Patients would be randomized to one embryo or two by the embryologist at the point of embryo transfer. We might use a telephone randomization system, controlling for key variables such as age, parity and duration of infertility. Patients and clinicians would be double-blinded at the first, fresh cycle and any spare embryos cryopreserved.
  4. Freezing and storing? Any spare embryos would be frozen for later treatment cycles. These would be transferred according to original schedule for one embryo or two, until all had been used up or 1 year had passed from first treatment.
  5. Outcome measures? Primary: live birth rate per woman. Secondary: live birth rate per treatment cycle, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, pregnancy and neonatal morbidity. Other aspects would be followed up by means of questionnaire including quality of life, satisfaction with care, with randomization and there would be an assessment of patient and hospital costs.
  6. Funding? A flat fee/package would be offered so that there was no financial advantage or disadvantage to patients of being assigned one or two embryos at transfer.

7. Are there any other practical problems which you can envisage with such a RCT?
(Ending)
8. All things considered, do you think that a RCT of single embryo transfer would be a good thing?
Summary. Now I am going to ask {Assistant} to sum up the criticisms which were made about the proposed design, and the suggestions offered for an improved study design.
9. How do you feel about that summing up? Is it a true representation of the views expressed?


    Acknowledgements
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. Interview schedule:...
 Appendix 2. Focus group...
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust. We are grateful to the staff and patients who took part.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. Interview schedule:...
 Appendix 2. Focus group...
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Bhattacharya S and Templeton A (2004) What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Redefining success in the context of single embryo transfer: evidence, intuition and financial reality. Hum Reprod 19, 1939–1942.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Centre for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation (2004) 2004—Last Update, Facts and Figures. www.ciscrp.org (accessed 17 June 2004).

Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Jackson JC, Hewison J and Thornton J (1998) Ethical issues in the design and conduct of randomized controlled trials. Hlth Technol Assmnt 2, 1–132.

ESHRE Campus Report (2001) Prevention of twin pregnancies after IVF/ICSI by single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 16, 790–800.

Featherstone K and Donovan JL (2002) ‘Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?’ The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomized controlled trial. Social Sci Med 55, 709–719.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Van de Meerssche M and Valkenburg M (1999) Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 14, 2581–2587.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Gerris J, De Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Van Royen E, Vercruyssen M, Barudy-Vasquez J, Valkenburg M and Ryckaert G (2002) Elective single day 3 embryo transfer halves the twinning rate without decrease in the ongoing pregnancy rate of an IVF/ICSI programme. Hum Reprod 17, 2626–2631.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ghersi D (2002) Making it happen: approaches to involving consumers in Cochrane reviews. Eval Hlth Professions 25, 270–283.[CrossRef]

Gleicher N, Campbell DP, Chan CL, Karande V, Rao R, Balin M and Pratt D (1995) The desire for multiple births in couples with infertility problems contradicts present practice patterns. Hum Reprod 10, 1079–1084.[Abstract]

Goldfarb J, Kinzer DJ, Boyle M and Kurit D (1996) Attitudes of in-vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination couples toward multiple gestation pregnancy and multifetal pregnancy reduction. Fertil Steril 65, 815–820.[ISI][Medline]

Grobman WA, Milad MP, Stout J and Klock SC (2001) Patient perceptions of multiple gestations: an assessment of knowledge and risk aversion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185, 920–924.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Hartshorne G and Lilford R (2002) Different perspectives of patients and health care professionals on the potential benefits and risks of blastocyst culture and multiple embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 17, 1023–1030.

Johnson NP, Proctor M and Farquhar CM (2003) Gaps in the evidence for fertility treatment—an analysis of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group database. Hum Reprod 18, 947–954.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kenyon S and Dixon-Woods M (2004) What do they know?: a content analysis of women's perceptions of trial information. Br J Obstet Gynecol 111, 1341–1345.

Kerr C, Robinson E, Stevens A, Braunholtz D, Edwards S and Lilford R (2004) Randomization in trials: do potential trial participants understand it and find it acceptable? J Med Ethics 30, 80–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Koops L and Lindley RI (2002) Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke: consumer involvement in design of new randomized controlled trial. Br Med J 325(7361), 415.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Kreuger R and Casey MA (2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Lilford RJ (2003) Ethics of clinical trials from a Bayesian and decision analytic perspective: whose equipoise is it anyway? Br Med J 326(7396), 980–981.[Free Full Text]

Madriz E (2000) Focus groups in feminist research. In Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 835–850.

Martikainen H, Tiitinen A, Tomas C, Tapanainen J, Orava M, Tuomivaara L, Vilska S, Hyden-Granskog C, Hovatta O Finnish ET Study Group (2001) One versus two embryo transfer after IVF and ICSI: a randomized study. Hum Reprod 16, 1900–1903.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Mason J (2002) Qualitative Researching. Sage, London.

Mills N, Donovan J, Smith M et al. (2003) Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study Art. Contr Clin Trials 24, 272–282.[CrossRef][ISI]

Morgan D (1993) Successful Focus Groups—Advancing the State of the Art. Sage, London.

Murray S, Shetty A, Rattray A, Taylor V and Bhattacharya S (2004) A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 19, 911–916.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ozturk O, Bhattacharya S and Templeton A (2001) Avoiding multiple pregnancies in ART: evaluation and implementation of new strategies. Hum Reprod 16, 1319–1321.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Potter J and Wetherell M (1994) Analyzing discourse. In Bryman A and Burgess R (eds) Analyzing Qualitative Data Routledge, London.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2002) Patient Involvement in Enhancing Service Provision: Clinical Governance Advice. No. 4. Guidelines and Audit Committee of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London.

Robinson EJ, Kerr C, Stevens A, Lilford R, Braunholtz D and Edwards S (2004) Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials. Social Sci Med 58, 811–824.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Thurin A, Hausken M, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A and Bergh C (2004) Elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. New Engl J Med 351, 2392–2402.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Submitted on June 24, 2004; resubmitted on April 25, 2005; accepted on April 27, 2005.





This Article
Abstract
Full Text (PDF )
All Versions of this Article:
20/9/2523    most recent
dei094v1
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Porter,, M.
Articles by Bhattacharya, S.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Porter,, M.
Articles by Bhattacharya, S.