Page 128 - Shared Guideline Development Experiences in Fertility Care

Chapter 6
Results
Participants
e patient panel included 19 infertile patients. e professional panel included 15 professionals nominated from di erent specialities: 3 gynaecologists, 3 urologists, 2 GPs, 2 clinical biochemists, 2 occupational physicians, 2 clinical psychologists, and 1 clinical embryologist. e society of GPs as well as the society of clinical embryologists mandated two and one professionals respectively, instead of the requested three and two professionals. Eight professionals (53%) were previously involved in the development of the NG on infertility.
Indicator development
Step 1: extraction and classi cation of NGs’ recommendations
e NG on infertility contained 201 evidence-based or consensus-based recommendations for optimal quality of fertility care. e recommendations were classi ed into 81 medical-technical and 120 recommendations for patient- centredness. All 81 recommendations regarding the medical-technical quality of fertility care were discarded (Figure I). By formulating the 120 recommendations into potential indicators for patient-centredness, two recommendations, both regarding the indications for referral to a social worker, were merged into one potential indicator. Of these 119 potential quality indicators for patient- centredness, 58 indicators concerned organizational aspects: 12 supported by levels I, II or III and 46 by a level IV of evidence. Sixty-one potential indicators concerned non-organizational aspects, of which 23 were supported by levels I, II or III, 14 by a level IV of evidence and 24 by a level P.
Step 2: written questionnaire round
From the patient panel 12 out of 19 (63%) and from the professional panel 14 out of 15 (93%) of the questionnaires were returned. Of the responding all female patients, 75% (n=9) su ered from secondary infertility, and had a median age of 37 years (range 28-39). Of these women, 67% (n=8) were highly educated. e median duration of infertility was 49 months (range 30-77). Most respondents (92%) received treatment (n=3) or had been treated (n=8) with MAR-techniques. Reasons for drop out included: time restraints (2), emotional distress during infertility treatment at the time (3), having di culty to assess the indicators (1)
126