European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2021
Communication with fertility patients during the COVID-19 pandemic- let's talk about it.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Karavani Gilad, Chill Henry H, Meirman Cherut, Dior Uri P, Ben-Meir Assaf
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the activity of a tertiary fertility service and compare telemedicine and face-to-face meetings during this time.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a university affiliated tertiary medical center. Included were patients scheduled for an appointment in the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) unit between March 18th and April 15th. A comparison was made between patients who chose telemedicine as opposed to face-to-face meetings. Additionally, the population of patients who chose to cancel their appointment was characterized. IVF cycle outcomes were additionally compared between the groups.
RESULTS: Overall, 90 IVF clinic appointments were scheduled during the study period. Thirty-four (37.8 %) patients chose to arrive to the clinic in spite of the COVID 19 pandemic and partial quarantine, 27 (30.0 %) patients chose to avoid in person meeting and scheduled a telemedicine appointment and 29 (32.2 %) patients cancelled their appointment. On comparison between patients who chose telemedicine vs. face-to-face meeting, the telemedicine group had lower prevalence of primary infertility (20.0 % vs. 47.1 %, p = 0.037) and higher rates of preimplantation genetic testing indication for in-vitro fertilization (48.2 % vs. 20.6 %, p = 0.026). Rate of a first-ever clinic visit was higher in patients that arrived for a face-to-face meeting, as compared to telemedicine encounter (55.9 % vs. 28.0 %, respectively; p = 0.036). Patients that opted to avoid attending the clinic or meeting via telemedicine had higher rates of medical comorbidities compared to patients who chose to attend their appointment (51.7 % vs. 29.5 %, p = 0.016). Rate of appointments that led to fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer and these transfers' outcomes (clinical pregnancy rate) were similar in the telemedicine and face-to-face meeting groups (72.2 % vs. 88.0 % and 30.8 % vs. 31.8 %, p = 0.73 and p = 1.00; respectively).
CONCLUSION: Telemedicine is a valuable tool for delivering fertility care during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is need to determine which patients will benefit most from this modality.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a university affiliated tertiary medical center. Included were patients scheduled for an appointment in the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) unit between March 18th and April 15th. A comparison was made between patients who chose telemedicine as opposed to face-to-face meetings. Additionally, the population of patients who chose to cancel their appointment was characterized. IVF cycle outcomes were additionally compared between the groups.
RESULTS: Overall, 90 IVF clinic appointments were scheduled during the study period. Thirty-four (37.8 %) patients chose to arrive to the clinic in spite of the COVID 19 pandemic and partial quarantine, 27 (30.0 %) patients chose to avoid in person meeting and scheduled a telemedicine appointment and 29 (32.2 %) patients cancelled their appointment. On comparison between patients who chose telemedicine vs. face-to-face meeting, the telemedicine group had lower prevalence of primary infertility (20.0 % vs. 47.1 %, p = 0.037) and higher rates of preimplantation genetic testing indication for in-vitro fertilization (48.2 % vs. 20.6 %, p = 0.026). Rate of a first-ever clinic visit was higher in patients that arrived for a face-to-face meeting, as compared to telemedicine encounter (55.9 % vs. 28.0 %, respectively; p = 0.036). Patients that opted to avoid attending the clinic or meeting via telemedicine had higher rates of medical comorbidities compared to patients who chose to attend their appointment (51.7 % vs. 29.5 %, p = 0.016). Rate of appointments that led to fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer and these transfers' outcomes (clinical pregnancy rate) were similar in the telemedicine and face-to-face meeting groups (72.2 % vs. 88.0 % and 30.8 % vs. 31.8 %, p = 0.73 and p = 1.00; respectively).
CONCLUSION: Telemedicine is a valuable tool for delivering fertility care during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is need to determine which patients will benefit most from this modality.