Dataset Information

Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training.

ABSTRACT: Background:Since 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners' opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training. Methods:Survey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate in an online survey in April 2012.: Categorical survey responses were expressed as percentages. Written responses were categorized according to common themes regarding effects of reporting on participants' medical management of patients. The study was primarily qualitative and was not powered to make statistical conclusions. Results:Of 1019 surveys sent, 323 participants (31.7%) responded from around the United States, and 275 provided complete data. Nearly all (273 of 282; 96.8%) participants responded that public reporting sometimes or always affected other providers' practices, and 264 of 281 (93.9%) responded that other practitioners were motivated to deny care to poor-prognosis patients to improve reported success rates. However, only 121 of 282 (42.9%) indicated that public reporting influenced their own medical management. The majority of respondents agreed that public reporting may hinder adoption of single embryo transfer practices (194 of 299; 64.9%) and contribute to the persistent rate of twinning in in vitro fertilization (187 of 279; 67%). A small majority (153 of 279; 54.8%) felt that public reporting did not benefit fellow training, and 58 (61.7%) of the 94 participants who trained fellows believed that having fellows perform embryo transfers reduced pregnancy rates. A small majority (163 of 277; 58.8%) of respondents reported their ART success rates on clinical websites. However, the majority (200 of 275; 72.7%) of respondents compared their success rates with those of other clinics. Finally, most respondents (211 of 277; 76%) believed that most centers that advertised their success rates did so in ways that were misleading to patients. Conclusions:Public reporting of ART clinical outcomes is intended to drive improvement, promote trust between patients and providers, and inform consumers and payers. However, providers reported that they modified their practices, felt others denied care to poor-prognosis patients, and limited participation of trainees in procedures in response to public reporting of ART outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Gunderson S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7014742 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training.

Gunderson Stephanie S Jungheim Emily S ES Kallen Caleb B CB Omurtag Kenan K

Fertility research and practice 20200211

<h4>Background</h4>Since 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners' opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training.<h4>Methods</h4>Survey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate ...[more]

PMID: 32071729

Similar Datasets

Project description:Public reporting of comparative performance information (PRCPI) influence patients' decision making and optimal presentation of PRCPI is urgently required for successful patients' engagement and quality improvement. This study was to explore the presentation of PRCPI impacting on consumers' decision making.This research applied a controlled design, with participants allocated randomly to 6 groups, and a total of 515 participants were recruited in Yunnan province. Five aspects of PRCPI presentations were evaluated, including display (star rating vs numeric information), and whether information was simplified, interpreted, overload, or ranked. Participants were stimulated to identify the best or worst physicians with a hypothetical scenario. Main outcome measures were correct choices rate of best/worst physicians, indicating participants fully understood and correctly used PRCPI. χ test and logistic regression were applied to assess the effect between different presentations on consumers' decision making.The correct choices rate is only 48.93%. Compared with star rating, numerical information helped participants differentiate low-performance physicians (OR = 2.573, P = .029), including low-performance physicians in antibiotics (OR = 2.974, P = .031) and low-performance physicians in injections (OR = 2.369, P = .035). Disordered information impeded participants to fully understand and correctly use PRCPI (OR = 0.519, P = .041). The effect was mainly reflected on participants differentiating low-performance physicians (OR = 0.491, P = .039) and low-performance physicians in injections (OR = 0.440, P = .016). Other aspects of PRCPI showed nonsignificant impacts on consumers' decision making.Presentation, including information display and ranking, can influence patients' correct usage of PRCPI and the effect was mainly observed when the patients were identifying poorly performing physicians. The present study demonstrated that numerical and ranked PRCPI, combined with sufficient patient education, could be most effective to facilitate patient use.

Dataset Information

Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training.

Publications

Public reporting of IVF outcomes influences medical decision-making and physician training.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets