Development and initial validation of a fertility experiences questionnaire

Thomas, F.; Stanford, Joseph B.; Sanders, Jessica N.; Gurtcheff, Shawn E.; Gibson, Mark; Porucznik, Christina A.; Simonsen, Sara

doi:10.1186/s12978-015-0054-3

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The validity of self-reported fertility diagnosis is less certain, but at least some types of diagnoses have been found to be reported accurately in questionnaires by educated women (38,39). We sought to minimize problems with recall for treatment by the multimode, two stage questionnaire (24).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In comparison to medical records, the FEQ was over 90% sensitive for pregnancy attempt duration, pregnancy outcomes, and use of IVF and IUI, and 70% sensitive for the use of ovulation drugs. (24) Data from 2000 to 2010 Utah birth and fetal death certi cates were linked with data from women who completed both the online questionnaire and the structured telephone interview. The University of Utah Institutional Review Board approved this study; participants provided informed consent online prior to completing the initial questionnaire.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fertility Treatments and the Risk of Preterm Birth Among Women with Subfertility: A Linked-Data Retrospective Cohort Study

Sanders

Simonsen

Porucznik

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In vitro fertilization (IVF) births contribute to a considerable proportion of preterm birth (PTB) each year. However, there is no formal surveillance of adverse perinatal outcomes for less invasive fertility treatments. The study objective was to determine the effect of fertility treatment (in vitro fertilization, intrauterine insemination, usually with ovulation drugs (IUI), or ovulation drugs alone) on preterm birth, compared to no treatment in subfertile women.Methods: The Fertility Experiences Study (FES) is a retrospective cohort study conducted at the University of Utah between April 2010 and September 2012. Women with a history of primary subfertility self-reported treatment data via survey and interviews. Participant data were linked to birth certificates and fetal death records to asses for perinatal outcomes, particularly preterm birth.Results: A total 487 birth certificates and 3 fetal death records were linked as first births for study participants who completed questionnaires. Among linked births, 19% had a PTB. After adjustment for maternal age, paternal age, maternal education, annual income, religious affiliation, female or male fertility diagnosis, and duration of subfertility, the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for PTB were 2.17 (CI: 0.99, 4.75) for births conceived using ovulation drugs, 3.17 (CI: 1.4, 7.19) for neonates conceived using IUI and 4.24 (CI: 2.05, 8.77) for neonates conceived by IVF, compared to women with subfertility who used no treatment during the month of conception. A reported diagnosis of female factor infertility increased the adjusted odds of having a PTB 2.99 (CI: 1.5, 5.97). Duration of pregnancy attempt was not independently associated with PTB. In restricting analyses to singleton gestation, odds ratios remained elevated but were not significant for any type of treatment.Conclusion: IVF, IUI, and ovulation drugs were all associated with a higher incidence of preterm birth and low birth weight, predominantly related to multiple gestation births.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fertility Treatments and the Risk of Preterm Birth Among Women with Subfertility: A Linked-Data Retrospective Cohort Study

Sanders

Simonsen

Porucznik

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our previous validation study found high levels of correlation between patient self-report and medical records for time attempting to conceive (Pearson’s rho=0.61), pregnancy and live birth histories (kappa=0.70), and use of in vitro fertilization (kappa=0.77). 15 For each period of time during which a woman was attempting to conceive, interviewers asked, “During this period did you see a doctor or provider specifically for fertility-related issues?” If yes, she was then asked, “Did you meet or consult with: A general physician/provider (obstetrician, family medicine physician, physician assistant, nurse midwife, nurse practitioner)?A fertility specialist?Utah Center for Reproductive Medicine (UCRM)?Reproductive Care Center (RCC)?Out of state?An alternative/holistic practitioner (chiropractor, acupuncturist, naturopath, etc. )?…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fertility Treatment, Use of in Vitro Fertilization, and Time to Live Birth Based on Initial Provider Type

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To explore the relationship between initial clinician type (generalist versus subspecialist) seen by infertile women, type of treatment received, and time to pregnancy. Methods In a retrospective cohort design, we analyzed mixed-mode questionnaire data from 867 women with primary infertility enrolled through population- and fertility clinic-based sampling. We compared women presenting first to generalist providers with women presenting first to fertility subspecialists, with the main outcomes of receiving in vitro fertilization (IVF), time to pregnancy, and live birth. Results The first point of contact for most (84%) women with infertility was a generalist provider. Only 8% of women sought care first from a fertility subspecialist, and these women were more likely to be older and have been trying to conceive longer before seeking care. Women who presented first to a generalist provider were less likely to receive IVF (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28, 0.82), were equally likely to achieve pregnancy, and had similar times to pregnancy (aHR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80, 1.53) compared to women who presented first to a subspecialist. Conclusions Generalist providers are frequently the first point of care for women with difficulty conceiving and are uniquely positioned to promote a balanced management of infertility.

show abstract

“…During this interview, more detailed questions reassessed screening criteria, but women's eligibility was not altered by any responses at this stage. We have reported elsewhere an initial validation of several components of the FEQ, the sources used to develop it, and its contents …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for a Retrospective Population‐based and Clinic‐based Subfertility Cohort Study: the Fertility Experiences Study

Stanford

Sanders

Simonsen

et al. 2016

Paediatric Perinatal Epid

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Most cohort-based research for subfertility has been conducted in clinic-based cohorts, which may differ from population-based cohorts. Methods We retrospectively recruited parallel cohorts of subfertile women: one by sampling two specialty fertility clinics in Utah, and one by population-based sampling based on marriage and birth records. The index date (of first clinic visit or subfertility status) was between 2000 and 2009, and we linked the women recruited to subsequent birth certificate records through December 2010. Results We enrolled 459 women through clinic-based sampling and 501 women through population-based sampling. Clinic-based women were older, had higher annual household income and more likely to have had a most intensive treatment of intrauterine insemination (31%) or in vitro fertilisation (46%) than women from population recruitment (19% and 14%, respectively). Conversely, they were less likely to have received no medical treatment (9%) compared to women from population recruitment (41%). For both types of sampling, prior to eligibility screening, non-responders were less likely to link to a live birth than responders: 51% versus 58% for clinic-based, and 69% versus 76% for the population-based with an index date in 2004. Conclusions Population-based sampling for subfertility cohort research identifies women who were more likely to have had less intensive treatment or no treatment. However, in both clinic-based and population-based sampling, women who have had a live birth are more likely to respond to retrospective recruitment.

show abstract

Development and initial validation of a fertility experiences questionnaire

Cited by 11 publications

References 27 publications

Fertility Treatments and the Risk of Preterm Birth Among Women with Subfertility: A Linked-Data Retrospective Cohort Study

Fertility Treatments and the Risk of Preterm Birth Among Women with Subfertility: A Linked-Data Retrospective Cohort Study

Fertility Treatment, Use of in Vitro Fertilization, and Time to Live Birth Based on Initial Provider Type

Methods for a Retrospective Population‐based and Clinic‐based Subfertility Cohort Study: the Fertility Experiences Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About