A multi-faceted strategy to improve the use of national fertility guidelines; a cluster-randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Human reproduction (Oxford) Vol. 26; no. 4; pp. 817 - 826
• Main Authors: Mourad, Selma M., Hermens, Rosella P.M.G., Liefers, Janine, Akkermans, Reinier P., Zielhuis, G.A., Adang, E., Grol, Richard P.T.M., Nelen, Willianne L.D.M., Kremer, Jan A.M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 01.04.2011
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Communication; Female; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; Infertility - therapy; Male; Medical sciences; Netherlands; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Patient Satisfaction; Patient-Centered Care; Physician-Patient Relations; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Quality of Health Care; Reproductive Medicine - methods; Reproductive Medicine - standards; Surveys and Questionnaires; Netherlands; guidelines; quality indicators; quality of care; fertility; Vertebrata; Randomization; Mammalia; Fertility; Quality; Clinical trial; Strategy; Indicator; Care
• ISSN: 0268-1161; 1460-2350
• DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq299

BACKGROUND Proper use of clinical practice guidelines can decrease variation in care between settings. However, actual use of fertility guidelines is suboptimal and in need of improvement. Hence, a cluster-randomized controlled trial was designed to study the effects of two strategies to implement national Dutch guidelines on comprehensive fertility care. METHODS Sixteen fertility clinics participated in the trial. A minimal, professional-oriented implementation strategy of audit and feedback was tested versus a maximal multi-faceted strategy that was both professional and patient oriented. The extent of adherence to guideline recommendations, reflected in quality indicator scores, was the primary outcome measure. To gain an insight into unwanted side effects, patient anxiety and depression scores were gathered as secondary outcomes. Data collection encompassed medical record search, patient and professional questionnaires. RESULTS A total of 1499 couples were included at baseline and 1396 at the after-measurement. No overall significant improvement in indicator scores was found for either strategy [odds ratios ranging from 0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06–0.95) to 6.66 (95% CI: 0.33–132.8]. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly for both groups, although selected anxiety scores appeared lower in the maximal intervention group. Process evaluation of the trial revealed positive patient experiences with the intervention material [e.g. an increased understanding of their doctor's treatment policy (61%), an increased ability to ask questions about the treatment (61%)]. Professionals’ appreciation of intervention elements varied, and execution of the multi-faceted strategy appeared incomplete. DISCUSSION Absence of an intervention effect may be due to the nature of the strategies, incomplete execution or flaws in study design. Process evaluation data raise the question of whether professionals should be the only stakeholder responsible for guideline implementation. This study therefore contributes to an increased understanding of fertility guideline implementation in general, and the role of patients in particular. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT00119925.