Improving patient-centredness in partnership with female patients: a cluster RCT in fertility care

Aleida G. Huppelschoten*, Willianne L. D. M. Nelen, Gert P. Westert, Ron J. T. van Golde, Eddym. M. Adang, Jan A. M. Kremer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

11 Citations (Web of Science)

Abstract

QUESTION: What is the effect of a multifaceted intervention with participation of patients on improvement of patient-centredness in fertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: A multifaceted intervention with participation of patients did not improve total patient-centredness scores provided by women in fertility care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We should provide care that takes into account the preferences and needs of patients, i.e. patient-centred care. Especially infertile patients who suffer from a high emotional burden of treatment could benefit from a more patient-centred approach in healthcare. However, the improvement of patient-centred care is still needed, because effective strategies to come to improvement are lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: A cluster RCT was performed within 32 Dutch fertility clinics, covering about one-third of all Dutch hospitals. After randomization, 16 clinics in the intervention group were exposed to a multifaceted improvement strategy for patient-centred fertility care for 1 year. This strategy comprised audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and patient-mediated interventions. The remaining 16 clinics in the control group performed care as usual. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: The clinics' levels of patient-centredness were measured, using the validated Patient-centredness Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility). At baseline measurement, a total of 1620 women in couples undergoing fertility care (this included both male, female, mixed infertility and infertility of unknown cause) in one of the participating clinics were randomly selected to participate in the study and complete the questionnaire. For the after measurement, we randomly selected a comparable sample of 1565 women in infertile couples. Both women who had already started their treatment before the start of the study (67%) and women who started their treatment after the start of this study (33%) were included. To avoid bias, we only included the responses of non-pregnant respondents. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: The final analysis involved 30 clinics. A total of 946 women (response 58.4%) completed their questionnaire at baseline measurement and also a total of 946 women (response 60.4%) at after measurement. After excluding the pregnant patients, respectively 696 and 730 questionnaires were eligible for analysis at baseline and after measurement. The total score of case-mix adjusted PCQ-Infertility at after measurement did not differ significantly between the intervention and control group (B = 0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.04-0.15; P = 0.25). However, scores on the continuity of care subscale were significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group (B = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.00-0.40; P <0.05). The addition of three interaction terms to the model had a significant impact: (i) being younger than 36 years, (ii) beginning treatment after the study had started and (iii) using complementary and alternative medicine. If women met all three conditions, the scores in the intervention group were on average 0.31 points higher compared with the control group (95% CI = 0.14-0.48; P =
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1137-1145
JournalHuman Reproduction
Volume30
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2015

Keywords

  • patient-centredness
  • improvement strategy
  • multifaceted approach
  • audit and feedback
  • RCTs

Cite this