RESUMEN
Objectives: In vitro fertilization (IVF) has the potential to give babies to millions more people globally, yet it continues to be underutilized. We established a globally applicable and locally adaptable IVF prognostics report and framework to support patient-provider counseling and enable validated, data-driven treatment decisions. This study investigates the IVF utilization rates associated with the usage of machine learning, center-specific (MLCS) prognostic reports (the Univfy® report) in provider-patient pre-treatment and IVF counseling. Methods: We used a retrospective cohort comprising 24,238 patients with new patient visits (NPV) from 2016 to 2022 across seven fertility centers in 17 locations in seven US states and Ontario, Canada. We tested the association of Univfy report usage and first intra-uterine insemination (IUI) and/or first IVF usage (a.k.a. conversion) within 180 days, 360 days, and "Ever" of NPV as primary outcomes. Results: Univfy report usage was associated with higher direct IVF conversion (without prior IUI), with odds ratios (OR) 3.13 (95% CI 2.83, 3.46), 2.89 (95% CI 2.63, 3.17), and 2.04 (95% CI 1.90, 2.20) and total IVF conversion (with or without prior IUI), OR 3.41 (95% CI 3.09, 3.75), 3.81 (95% CI 3.49, 4.16), and 2.78 (95% CI 2.59, 2.98) in 180-day, 360-day, and Ever analyses, respectively; p < 0.05. Among patients with Univfy report usage, after accounting for center as a factor, older age was a small yet independent predictor of IVF conversion. Conclusions: Usage of a patient-centric, MLCS-based prognostics report was associated with increased IVF conversion among new fertility patients. Further research to study factors influencing treatment decision making and real-world optimization of patient-centric workflows utilizing the MLCS reports is warranted.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of brief couples support groups offered concurrently with in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Couples in IVF treatment were given the option of participating in a biweekly support group at the IVF clinic at Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, Tex. At least 1 member of 26 couples participated in the brief couples support groups, and at least 1 member of 19 other couples completed the questionnaires but did not attend the support group sessions and so comprised the control group. Facilitators used cognitive behavioral techniques to help participants process their feelings and cognitions about their infertility. Emotional and cognitive factors were assessed both before and after group attendance by using the Beck Depression Inventory; the Beck Anxiety Inventory; the Life Orientation Test, which assesses optimism and pessimism; the Survey of Personal Views, which measures irrational beliefs; and the Social Provisions Scale, which measures social support. RESULTS: Women who attended group sessions were significantly less anxious after the IVF treatment than they were before the cycle (P < .001). Men who attended the group sessions were more optimistic than nongroup men or the women at the completion of the IVF cycle (P < .001) but endorsed greater numbers of irrational beliefs (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that the service was relatively inexpensive compared with IVF in the civilian community, the complexity of IVF treatment and the logistic and psychological stress experienced by couples made it hard to form and maintain such groups. Nevertheless, both men and women derived psychological benefit from the group: women reported less anxiety and men greater optimism on completion of the group sessions.