Introduction: Many people undergo fertility treatment to have biological children, but around four in ten patients complete all treatment cycles without having the children they desire. This triggers intense grief from which patients report taking on average 2 years to recover. Fertility guidelines and regulators stress the need to support patients through this process, but there is a scarcity of evaluated interventions to this end and evidence about when and how to offer care is lacking. This study explored patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences of and views about provision of psychosocial care (to patients facing unsuccessful fertility treatment, i.e., care provided by a mental health professional to address the emotional, cognitive, behavioural, relational and social needs that patients have at this stage of treatment).Methods: Five qualitative online focus groups were conducted with Portuguese participants: three with patients waiting to initiate or undergoing their last cycle of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection or having completed it within the last 2 months without achieving a pregnancy and two with HCPs working at fertility clinics. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and data were analysed with Framework Analysis.Results: Thirteen patients and nine HCPs participated. Analysis resulted in 1293 codes, systematically organized into 13 categories, 4 themes and 1 metatheme. The latter showed high consensus about the need for psychosocial care for unsuccessful treatment, but perceived challenges in its implementation. Themes reflected (1) consensual demand for psychosocial care at all stages of treatment but particularly at the end, (2) high perceived acceptability of integrating preventive care initiated during treatment with early psychosocial care only for those patients who experience unsuccessful treatment, (3) perceived challenges of implementing

Summary Here we report a quantitative analysis of human metaphase II (MII) oocytes from a 22-year-old oocyte donor, retrieved after ovarian-controlled hyperstimulation. Five surplus donor oocytes were processed for transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and a stereological analysis was used to quantify the distribution of organelles, using the point-counting technique with an adequate stereological grid. Comparisons between means of the relative volumes (Vv) occupied by organelles in the three oocyte regions, cortex (C), subcortex (SC) and inner cytoplasm (IC), followed the Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction. Life cell imaging and TEM analysis confirmed donor oocyte nuclear maturity. Results showed that the most abundant organelles were smooth endoplasmic reticulum (SER) elements (26.8%) and mitochondria (5.49%). Significant differences between oocyte regions were found for lysosomes (P = 0.003), cortical vesicles (P = 0.002) and large SER vesicles (P = 0.009). These results were quantitatively compared with previous results using prophase I (GV) and metaphase I (MI) immature oocytes. In donor MII oocytes there was a normal presence of cortical vesicles, SER tubules, SER small, medium and large vesicles, lysosomes and mitochondria. However, donor MII oocytes displayed signs of cytoplasmic immaturity, namely the presence of dictyosomes, present in GV oocytes and rare in MI oocytes, of SER very large vesicles, characteristic of GV oocytes, and the rarity of SER tubular aggregates. Results therefore indicate that the criterion of nuclear maturity used for donor oocyte selection does not always correspond to cytoplasmic maturity, which can partially explain implantation failures with the use of donor oocytes.

In the initially published article, Emídio Vale-Fernandes was mistakenly displayed as Emídio V. Fernandes. This has been corrected in the published piece.

No abstract