STUDY QUESTION What are appraisals, coping strategies and emotional reactions of patients to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) fertility clinic closures? SUMMARY ANSWER Clinic closure was appraised as stressful due to uncertainty and threat to the attainability of the parenthood goal but patients were able to cope using strategies that fit the uncertainty of the situation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Psychological research on COVID-19 suggests that people are more anxious than historical norms and moderately to extremely upset about fertility treatment cancellation owing to COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The study was of cross-sectional design, comprising a mixed-methods, English language, anonymous, online survey posted from April 09 to April 21 to social media. Eligibility criteria were being affected by COVID-19 fertility clinic closure, 18 years of age or older and able to complete the survey in English. In total, 946 people clicked on the survey link, 76 did not consent, 420 started but did not complete survey, and 450 completed (48% completion, 446 women, four men). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Overall 74.7% (n = 336) of respondents were residents in the UK with an average age of 33.6 years (SD = 4.4) and average years trying to conceive, 3.5 years (SD = 2.22). The survey comprised quantitative questions about the intensity of cognitive appraisals and emotions about clinic closure, and ability to cope with clinic closure. Open-text questions covered their understanding of COVID-19 and its effect on reproductive health and fertility plans, concerns and perceived benefits of clinic closure, and knowledge about closure. Sociodemographic information was collected. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used on quantitative data. Thematic qualitative analysis (inductive coding) was performed on the textual data from each question. Deductive coding grouped themes from each question into meta-themes related to cognitive stress and coping theory. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Most patients (81.6%, n = 367) had tests or treatments postponed, with these being self (41.3%, n = 186) or publicly (46.4%, n = 209) funded. Patients appraised fertility clinic closure as having potential for a more negative than positive impact on their lives, and to be very or extremely uncontrollable and stressful (p ≤ .001). Most reported a slight to moderate ability to cope with closure. Data saturation was achieved with all open-text questions, with 33 broad themes identified and four meta-themes linked to components of the cognitive stress and coping theory. First, participants understood clinic closure was precautionary due to unknown effects of COVID-19 but some felt clinic closure was unfair relative to advice about getting pregnant given to the public. Second, closure was appraised as a threat to attainability of the parenthood goal largely due to uncertainty of the situation (e.g., re-opening, effect of delay) and intensification of pre-existing hardships of fertility problems (e.g., long time waiting for treatment, history of failed treatment). Third, closure taxed personal coping resources but most were able to cope using thought-management (e.g., distraction, focusing on positives), getting mentally and physically fit for next treatments, strengthening their social network, and keeping up-to-date. Finally, participants reported more negative than positive emotions (p ≤  .001) and almost all participants reported stress, worry and frustration at the situation, while some expressed anger and resentment at the unfairness of the situation. Overall, 11.9% were not at all able to cope, with reports of intense feelings of hopelessness and deteriorating wellbeing and mental health. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The survey captures patient reactions at a specific point in time, during lockdown and before clinics announced re-opening. Participants were self-selected (e.g., UK residents, women, 48% starting but not completing the survey), which may affect generalisability. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Fertility stakeholders (e.g., clinics, patient support groups, regulators, professional societies) need to work together to address the great uncertainty from COVID-19. This goal can be met proactively by setting up transparent processes for COVID-19 eventualities and signposting to information and coping resources. Future psychological research priorities should be on identifying patients at risk of distress with standardised measures and developing digital technologies appropriate for the realities of fertility care under COVID-19. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) University funded research. Outside of the submitted work, Professor Boivin reports personal fees from Merck KGaA, Merck AB, Theramex, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S; grants from Merck Serono Ltd; and that she is co-developer of the Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) and MediEmo apps. Outside of the submitted work, Dr. Mathur reports personal or consultancy fees from Manchester Fertility, Gedeon Richter, Ferring and Merck. Outside of the submitted work, Dr. Gameiro reports consultancy fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Access Fertility and SONA-Pharm LLC, and grants from Merck Serono Ltd. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A

STUDY QUESTIONDoes the provision of fertility (compared to control) information affect fertility-related knowledge, perceived threat of infertility, anxiety, physical stress and fertility plans in adolescents and emerging adults?SUMMARY ANSWERThe provision of fertility information was associated with increased fertility knowledge (emerging adults) and greater infertility threat (adolescents and emerging adults).WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYAccording to fertility education research, adolescents and emerging adults know less than they should know about fertility topics. Fertility knowledge can be improved through the provision of information in older adults.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONExperimental design. Secondary and university students completed pre-information questionnaires, were randomly assigned via computer to an experimental group, read either fertility (FertiEduc group) or healthy pregnancy information (Control group), and completed post-information questionnaires. Data were collected in group sessions via an online portal.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSEligible participants were aged 16–18 (adolescents) or 21–24 years (emerging adults), childless, not currently pregnant (for men, partner not pregnant) or trying to conceive, presumed fertile and intending to have a child in the future. Of the 255 invited, 208 (n = 93 adolescents, n = 115 emerging adults) participated. The FertiEduc group received ‘A Guide to Fertility’, four online pages of information about fertility topics (e.g. ‘When are men and women most fertile?’) and the Control group received four online pages from the National Health Service (NHS) pregnancy booklet ‘Baby Bump and Beyond’. Participants completed a questionnaire (fertility knowledge, perceived threat of infertility, anxiety, physical stress and fertility plans, moderators) prior to and after the provision of information. Mixed factorial analysis of variance was used to examine the effects of information provision and hierarchical multiple regression to assess potential moderators of knowledge.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEThe FertiEduc and Control groups were equivalent on age, gender, disability, relationship status and orientation at baseline. Results showed that fertility information significantly increased fertility knowledge for emerging adults only (P < 0.001) and threat of infertility for emerging adults and adolescents (P = 0.05). The moderators were not significant. Participation in the study was associated with an increase in feelings of anxiety but a decrease in physical stress reactions. Adolescents had more optimal fertility plans compared to emerging adults due to being younger.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONThis was an experimental study on a self-selected sample of men and women from selected educational institutions and only short term effects of information were studied.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSProvision of fertility information can have benefits (increased fertility knowledge) but also costs (increase potential threat of infertility). Adol...

STUDY QUESTION What is willingness, preference and decision-making about planning for the possibility of needing multiple cycles of IVF/ICSI treatment among patients consulting for a first or repeat stimulated IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of patients seem to value the opportunity to plan for multiple cycles of treatment while acknowledging both possible challenges and benefits of doing so and decisions that might need to be made in advance. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Patients have strong intentions to do treatment to achieve pregnancy and approximately 48–54% continue treatment when confronted with a failed cycle, undergoing at least three complete cycles of treatment. However, there is inconsistency between this apparent willingness to do multiple cycles of treatment and the way treatment is currently planned on a cycle-by-cycle basis with patients. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The study was of cross-sectional design, comprising a mixed-methods English online survey posted between November 2019 and March 2020. Eligibility criteria were being a patient who had had a consultation to start a stimulated cycle of IVF/ICSI for the first time or for a repeat stimulated cycle after an unsuccessful cycle in the eight weeks prior to survey completion. Individuals were also required to be aged 18 or older (upper age limit of 42 years for women) and able to respond in English. In total 881 clicked on the survey link, 118 did not consent, 41 were excluded after data screening, 57 did not meet the inclusion criteria, 331 started the survey but did not complete it, 28 had missing data on critical variables (e.g., age) and 306 completed the survey (40.1% completion, 57 men, 249 women). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Participants were allocated to either the willing or unwilling to plan for multiple cycles of treatment group based on their responses to three variables: willingness to plan for three complete cycles, whether they would choose to have another cycle of IVF and whether they would continue treatment after an unsuccessful cycle. Quantitative questions gathered data on preferences towards planning for multiple cycles (i.e., attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control), challenges, benefits of planning for multiple cycles, decisional conflict experienced and treatment decisions involved in planning for multiple cycles. Demographic, fertility and fertility treatment information were also collected. Qualitative questions gathered textual data on other perceived benefits and challenges of planning for multiple cycles and solutions to the challenges. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used on quantitative data. Thematic analysis (inductive coding) was performed on the textual data. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Overall, 73.2% (n = 224) of participants had had a consultation to start a first cycle of IVF/ICSI. Participants were on average 33 years of age and had been trying to conceive for three years. A total of 63.07% (n = 193) were university educated. A total of 56% (n = 172) of participants were willing to plan for multiple cycles of IVF/ICSI in advance of treatment. Repeated measures ANOVA, t-tests and chi-square analysis showed the willing group to be significantly more likely to have been in a relationship for longer (p&lt;.05), have higher education (p&lt;.05) and be resident in the United Kingdom (p&lt;.05). The willing group had positive attitudes towards planning for multiple cycles (p&lt;.001) and stronger agreement with subjective norms (p&lt;.001), perceived behavioural control (p&lt;.001), benefits of planning for multiple cycles (p&lt;.01) and felt able and attached more importance to making treatment decisions in advance of treatment (p&lt;.05). Data saturation was achieved for the thematic analysis of textual data which revealed a total of four other challenges (e.g., less decisional freedom) and six other benefits (e.g., having a realistic view of treatment) to planning for multiple cycles. Qualitative analysis also revealed that most patients could anticipate and provide solutions for the nine challenges of planning for multiple cycles (e.g., using flexible working for the negative effect of treatment on work). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Limitations included the outcome measure being willingness to plan for multiple cycles rather than actual multi-cycle planning behaviour. The unwilling group represented a heterogeneous group with possibly unknown motivational coherence (e.g., definitely against planning, ambivalent about planning). Other limitations included the cross-sectional nature of the survey and the recruitment source. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Treatment consultations about undergoing fertility treatment could re-frame treatment to be a multi-cycle process in line with patient’s willingness, preference and decision-making. This multi-cycle approach could empower patients and clinicians to discuss treatment expectations realistically and formulate fully informed treatment plans that take account of the high likelihood of cycle failure in addition to the treatment decisions that may need to be made during treatment when a cycle fails. This multi-cycle approach could help us support patients in adhering to their treatment plans even when faced with challenges, and help ascertain the level of treatment engagement possible to achieve parenthood goals. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This project is funded by an Investigator-Sponsor Non-interventional Study from Merck Serono Ltd (MS200059_0010). Professor Boivin reports personal fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck AB an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany, Theramex, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, grant from Merck Serono Ltd, outside the submitted work and that she is co-developer of Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) and MediEmo app. Dr. Gameiro reports consultancy fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Access Fertility and SONA-Pharm LLC, and grants from Merck Serono Ltd. Dr. Harrison declares no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER n/a

STUDY QUESTION What are patients’ and fertility staff views of talking about possible IVF/ICSI failure and need for multiple cycles in treatment planning? SUMMARY ANSWER Healthcare professionals (HCPs) typically plan treatment on a cycle-by-cycle basis but HCPs and patients see benefits in talking about possible IVF/ICSI failure and the consequent need for multiple cycles to better prepare patients for this possibility, to support them through treatment challenges and to foster a sense of collaboration with the clinic in achieving the shared goal of treatment success. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Many patients need more than one round of IVF/ICSI stimulation to achieve their parenthood goals. About 60% of patients are willing to plan for multiple cycles of treatment in advance of treatment engagement. However, it is not clear how patients are informed about the high possibility of failure and the subsequent need for multiple cycles during their treatment planning consultations, and how approaches could be optimized. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Qualitative focus groups with HCPs working at fertility clinics, patient advocates employed by patient charities (April 2020) and patients (July and August 2020). Patients were eligible if they had had a consultation to start a first/repeat stimulated IVF/ICSI cycle in the 8 weeks prior to participation, were aged 18 or older (upper age limit of 42 years for women), in heterosexual relationships and fluent in English. Eligible HCPs and patient advocates were those employed at a fertility clinic or charity, respectively. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHOD Focus group topic guides progressed from general questions about fertility consultations to if and how the possibility of treatment failure and need for multiple cycles was introduced and discussed in (attended/own) clinics. After, preferences regarding planning IVF/ICSI on a multi-cycle or cycle-by-cycle basis were explored. Focus groups were recorded, and recordings transcribed and analysed using framework analysis to identify shared, unique and incongruent themes across participant groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Twelve HCPs, 2 patient advocates and 10 patients participated in six semi-structured online focus group discussions. All patients were childless and had been trying to conceive for ∼3 years. Framework analysis generated four themes and one meta-theme across participant groups. The meta-theme showed planning IVF on a cycle-by-cycle basis is the norm at clinics and that this affects how treatment is planned and the acceptability of a shift towards planning for multiple cycles, which was perceived as beneficial despite some apprehension. The four themes were: (i) heterogeneity in information provision during treatment planning; (ii) the need for improved HCP-patient collaboration; (iii) the need to temper optimism about treatment success; and (iv) apprehension, benefits and preferences regarding multi-cycle planning. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Most patients were women from private fertility clinics with no previous treatment experience recruited from social media websites, mainly associated with patient support groups. Similarly, most HCPs were women from private fertility clinics. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The findings suggest that shifting from cycle-by-cycle to multi-cycle approaches in IVF planning is possible. Achieving this shift, like other shifts in IVF (e.g. single embryo transfer), is likely to require collaboration among all stakeholders (e.g. users, staff, policymakers, regulators) to ensure that costs and benefits are balanced through using appropriate benchmarks, avoiding deflating optimism, fostering a sense of collaboration and supporting patients through challenges of multi-cycle IVF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research is funded by an Investigator-Sponsor Noninterventional Study from Merck Serono Ltd (MS200059_0010), an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. ‘Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy only before journal submission. The Authors are fully responsible for the content of this manuscript, and the views and opinions described in the publication reflect solely those of the authors’. Prof. J.B. reports personal fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck AB an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany, Theramex, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, grant from Merck Serono Ltd, outside the submitted work and that she is co-developer of Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) and MediEmo app. Dr S.G. reports consultancy fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Access Fertility and SONA-Pharm LLC, and grants from Merck Serono Ltd, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Dr C.H. declares no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

This study investigated fertility decision-making in people currently trying to conceive, and examined whether factors that make people ready to conceive differ by gender and country. The study used data from the International Fertility Decision-Making Study, a cross-sectional study of 10,045 participants (1690 men and 8355 women) from 79 countries. Respondents were aged 18–50 years (mean 31.8 years), partnered and had been trying to conceive for > 6 months (mean 2.8 years). Respondents indicated their need for parenthood; their own/partner's desire for a child; and the influence of certain preconditions, motivational forces and subjective norms in relation to readiness to conceive. Factor analysis of preconditions and motivational forces revealed four decisional factors: social status of parents, economic preconditions, personal and relational readiness, and physical health and child costs. Significant gender differences were found for desire for a child, decisional factors and subjective norms. Compared with men, women had higher personal desire for a child, and rated economic and personal and relational readiness as more influential. Men were more likely to rate subjective norms and social status of parents as more influential. Country comparisons found significant differences in personal desire for a child, partner's desire for a child, need for parenthood, preconditions, motivational forces and subjective norms. The results demonstrate that some decisional factors have a universal association with starting families (e.g. desire for a child), whilst the influence of others (e.g. personal and relational readiness) is dependent on contextual factors. These findings support the need for contemporary, prospective and international research on reproductive decision-making, and emphasize the need for effective fertility policies to take contextual factors into account.