We are here for you: infertility clinic communication during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose To study how SART-member fertility clinics communicated via clinic websites during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic following publication of ASRM COVID-19 Task Force recommendations. Methods SART-member fertility clinic websites were systematically surveyed for the presence of an REI-...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics 2021-07, Vol.38 (7), p.1809-1817
Main Authors: Mehr, Holly, Jackson-Bey, Tia, Vu, Michelle, Lee, Victoria, Herndon, Christopher, Ho, Jacqueline, Aghajanova, Lusine, Quinn, Molly M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Annual cycles
Assisted Reproduction Technologies
Coronaviruses
COVID-19
Fertility
Gynecology
Human Genetics
Infertility
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Pandemics
Patients
Reproductive Medicine
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose To study how SART-member fertility clinics communicated via clinic websites during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic following publication of ASRM COVID-19 Task Force recommendations. Methods SART-member fertility clinic websites were systematically surveyed for the presence of an REI-specific COVID-19 message (REI-CM) and analyzed for their adherence to ASRM guidance. Results Of the 381 active clinic websites, 249 (65.3%) had REI-specific COVID messaging. The presence of REI-CM was more common in private than in academic practices (73% vs 38%, p < 0.001) and with increasing practice volume: 38% of clinics with < 200 annual cycles vs 91% of clinics with > 1000 cycles ( p < 0.001). Adherence to ASRM guidance was more common in academic than in private practices (54% vs 31%, p = 0.02). Additionally, 9% of REI-CM ( n = 23) announced continued treatment regardless of a patient’s clinical urgency. This messaging was more common in groups doing > 1000 cycles a year (18%, p = 0.009) . Clinics treating all-comers were less likely to cite ASRM than other clinics (41% vs 62%, p = 0.045). However, 75% ( n = 14) cited COVID-19 guidance from WHO, CDC, and state and local governments. Conclusions Clinic response to ASRM recommendations during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic was heterogeneous. Although academic practices were more likely to follow ASRM guidance, there was a lower extent of patient-facing messaging among academic practices than private clinics. In event of further escalations of this and future pandemics, clinics can learn from experiences to provide clear messaging to patients.
ISSN:1058-0468
1573-7330
DOI:10.1007/s10815-021-02186-1