With the increasing offer of fertility treatment by a largely privatised sector, which has involved the proliferation of treatment add-ons lacking evidence of effectiveness, In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) patients are expected to make informed choices on what to include in their treatment. Drawing on interviews with 51 individuals undergoing fertility treatment, this article explores patients' approaches to medical evidence interpretation and its role in their decisions to include add-ons. While most IVF patients share understandings of what counts as medical evidence, our findings show how their approaches also differ. Our analysis focuses on how patients negotiate the notion of medical evidence and its relation to other forms of experience or knowledge. We present four different approaches to evidence in IVF: (1) delegating evaluations of evidence to experts; (2) critically assessing available evidence; (3) acknowledging the process of making evidence; and (4) contextualising evidence in their lived experience of infertility. We suggest that patients' choice to include add-ons is not due to a lack of information on or understanding of evidence, but rather should be interpreted as part of the complexity of patients' experiences of infertility.
PMID 36369731 36369731 DOI 10.1111/1467-9566.13581 10.1111/1467-9566.13581
Cite this article
Perrotta, M., & Hamper, J. (2023). Patient informed choice in the age of evidence-based medicine: IVF patients' approaches to biomedical evidence and fertility treatment add-ons. Sociology of health & illness, 45(2), 225-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13581
Perrotta M, Hamper J. Patient informed choice in the age of evidence-based medicine: IVF patients' approaches to biomedical evidence and fertility treatment add-ons. Sociol Health Illn. 2023;45(2):225-241. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.13581
Perrotta, Manuela, and Josie Hamper. "Patient informed choice in the age of evidence-based medicine: IVF patients' approaches to biomedical evidence and fertility treatment add-ons." Sociology of health & illness, vol. 45, no. 2, 2023, pp. 225-241.
Infertility affects \~20% of the couples in the world. Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are currently the most common treatment option for infertility. Nevertheless, ARTs may be associated with complications for mothers and/or offspring. Natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology) is a natural treatment which minimizes these risks by seeking to identify the causes of infertility to enable better treatments. This narrative review summarizes the complications related to ARTs and clarifies how the NaProTechnology approach can help ARTs to achieve better results or be used in alternative to ARTs. Data in the literature indicate that NaProTechnology is a natural approach for treating infertility. The percentage of live births obtained by NaProTechnology is similar to that of ARTs. An extensive search for the genetic defects causing infertility or subfertility through genetic testing can help both ARTs and NaProTechnology to achieve successful pregnancies. By discovering the underlying causes of infertility, genetic tests enable better family counseling, like the implications of transmitting risk- and disease-alleles to future generations.
Of the 237 women, 92 (38.8%) had experienced both a normal and a toxaemic pregnancy, and 72 (78%) contrasted the sense of well-being associated with a normal pregnancy with the malaise and minor symptoms characteristic of the toxaemic condition. The striking feature of these early minor symptoms of toxaemia was their close resemblance to those of premenstrual syndrome noted in an earlier investigation (Greene and Dalton, 1953), most patients confirming that the minor symptoms during their toxaemic pregnancy were similar, though of increased severity, to those experienced in the premenstruum, irrespective of whether the onset of premenstrual syndrome had preceded or followed the toxaemic pregnancy.
The current approach to infertility of assisted reproductive technology (ART) completely misses and then bypasses the evaluation and treatment of cervical factor infertility. In contrast, the Creighton Model Fertility Care System (CrMS), a method of fertility awareness that has the unique ability to quantify cervical mucus observations, and natural procreative technology (NaProTECHNOLOGY or NPT) directly evaluate and treat cervical factor infertility. The ART treatment of choice for cervical factor infertility--intrauterine insemination (IUI)--is also morally disparate from while the latter genuinely assists the infertile couple's act of sexual union to achieve its natural end of pregnancy, IUI replaces the natural act, depriving human conception of the one context worthy of the dignity of human life and procreation, a reciprocal self-gifting act of love between husband and wife. A renewed interest and focus on the direct evaluation and treatment of cervical factor infertility is needed.
In vitro fertilization used in combination with intracytoplasmic sperm injection allows otherwise sterile couples to become parents. Despite recent studies on the safety of these technologies, there is still only an incomplete picture of the risks associated with the usage of these assisted reproductive techniques to offspring. The risk of multiple gestations continues to be of major concern because of its association with low birth weight, preterm delivery, and increased perinatal mortality. This article outlines the risks associated with in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a well-defined treatment for couples with severe male factor infertility.