Ethics and Policy Reproductive Ethics

Decision making by patients seeking care for fertility problems

Cooper A, Duthie EA, Schoyer KD, Davis JB, Sandlow J, Strawn EY, Flynn KE

Published September 2016 Fertility and Sterility
DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.123

RRM Academy Synopsis

Finances shape how couples decide on fertility treatment

Couples who could afford their first choice of care generally moved relatively quickly to agreement and action. The study followed 37 couples for a year after they booked a first visit with an IVF doctor (a reproductive endocrinologist). The authors call money a key factor in whether couples settle on a plan.

Study at a glance, mixed-methods study of 37 couples: Finances shaped how couples decided on fertility treatment
Study at a glance, mixed-methods study of 37 couples: Finances shaped how couples decided on fertility treatment. Source: Cooper A et al., 2016, DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.123.

Key Findings

  • The team analyzed 414 interviews from 37 couples. Each partner did surveys and interviews separately, up to 6 times across the year.
  • Before the first visit, 55% of respondents called costs "quite a bit" or "very much" important to their decisions. After meeting the IVF doctor, 64% did.
  • Couples who could purchase their preferred care generally reached agreement and acted on it relatively quickly.
  • Couples with tighter budgets often postponed a treatment they agreed on, or jointly chose an affordable second choice.
  • Many supporting partners said, looking back, that they wished they had taken a bigger part.

Interpretation

This study followed 37 couples for a year at one academic medical center in a Midwestern state with no insurance mandate. Researchers used interviews and surveys to see how each couple decided on fertility treatment. The authors report that most couples arrived at their first appointment with no decisions made. They wanted information and advice. Couples who could not afford their first choice often took time to think it over. The authors say these couples may value input on next-best options. The findings support larger studies of how finances shape couples' fertility decisions.

RRM Context

RRM begins by evaluating both partners to find why conception is not happening, so the plan follows the cause. The couples here were weighing costs and choices at a first visit, when most had decided nothing. The regret voiced by supporting partners fits RRM's couple-centered approach, in which both partners take part from the start.

Abstract

Objective

To describe how couples navigate infertility treatment decisions, including how they deliberate and reach consensus on plans for family building, how they adapt their plans as treatment progresses, and how they view past decisions.

Design

Longitudinal, mixed-methods study on infertility decisionmaking among couples making an initial appointment with a reproductive specialist (RS) at an academic medical center in a Midwestern state without a health insurance mandate. We used interview and survey data to construct the treatment paths couples pursued considering financial and emotional resources and decision-making approaches.

Materials and Methods

Each member of 37 couples separately completed surveys and interviews up to 6 times during the year after making a first appointment; clinical data were abstracted from medical records. Data were managed/analyzed in REDCap, NVivo, and Stata. Written transcripts were systematically coded via standard procedures for content analysis (>10% double coded).

Results

Through analysis of 414 interviews, we found that before an initial consultation with a RS most patients and their partners viewed gaining information as a key goal in meeting with a RS. Financial resources played an important role in shaping couples’ decision-making processes, and many respondents identified finances as an important constraint. Before their first appointment, 55% of respondents identified costs associated with trying to have a child as ‘‘quite a bit’’ or ‘‘very much’’ important to their decision-making, and that percentage increased to 64% after couples met with a RS. Couples able to purchase the care they desired generally moved relatively quickly both to consensus and to acting on their preferences. In contrast, couples whose finances were more constrained often delayed pursuing treatment that they otherwise agreed they would choose or worked together to identify a second-choice alternative that was financially feasible. Even as couples moved forward with one treatment path they often had a 2nd-choice alternative already in mind, as many were aware of the uncertainty associated with any given course of treatment. Finally, when looking back over the year, many supporting partners expressed regret at not being more involved along the way.

Conclusions

Understanding how couples reach consensus concerning plans for reproductive treatment holds promise to improve quality of care and increase long-term decisional satisfaction for patients and their partners. When couples first meet with a RS, most have not already made any decisions and are seeking information and advice. A key factor shaping couples’ abilities to reach agreement and proceed with treatment is their financial resources. Those who cannot afford their ‘‘first choice’’ often need the opportunity to ruminate and may appreciate input from the RS on next-best alternatives.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Ethics and Policy › Reproductive Ethics › Third Party Reproduction · Cost and Access › Cost of Care › Treatment Costs · Assisted Reproduction › Industry, Cost and Access › Cost per Cycle
Alexandra L. Cooper, Elizabeth Ann Duthie, Kate D. Schoyer, Joseph B. Davis, Kathryn E. Flynn
Alex Cooper, A Cooper, Liz Duthie, Beth Duthie, Betsy Duthie, E Duthie, Catherine Schoyer, Katherine Schoyer, Kathryn Schoyer, K Schoyer, Joe Davis, Joey Davis, J Davis, Kathy Flynn, Kate Flynn, K Flynn
DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.123 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.123 Cooper et al. 2016, Cooper 2016