Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2021; 39(05/06): 220-226
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731789
Review Article

A Baby at All Costs? Exploring the Use and Provision of Unproven Adjuvant Treatments in the Context of IVF

Georgina L. Jones 
1   Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom
,
Victoria Lang
2   Centre for Reproduction Research, De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom
,
Nicky Hudson
2   Centre for Reproduction Research, De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The year 2018 marked 40 years since the birth of Louise Brown, the first baby born as a result of pioneering in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Since then, advances have seen a wide range of reproductive technologies emerge into clinical practice, including adjuvant treatments often referred to as IVF “add-ons.” However, these “optional extras” have faced growing criticism, especially when they have often come at additional financial cost to the patient and have little evidence supporting their efficacy to improve pregnancy or birth rates. Despite this, according to the latest national patient survey by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, three quarters of patients who had fertility treatment in the United Kingdom in the past two years had at least one type of treatment add-on highlighting the growing demand for these interventions. This article uses a psychosocial perspective to consider the motivations behind patient and clinician behavior along with the wider societal and economic factors that may be impacting upon the increase in the use of adjuvant treatments in fertility clinics more widely. It suggests the reasons fertility patients use unproven “optional extras” are complex, with interpersonal, psychological, and social factors intertwining to generate an increase in the use of IVF add-ons.

Keywords

adjuvant treatments - in vitro fertilization - infertility - add-ons - psychosocial


Publication History

Article published online:
09 September 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Thompson C. Making parents: the ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Am J Sociol 2006; 112 (02) 619-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Golombok S. Modern Families: Parents and Children in New Family Forms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2015
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Franklin S. Embodied Progress. A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge; 1997: 252
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Cheshire S. IVF Regulation: Ensuring Safe and Ethical Treatment. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Pilot National Fertility Patient Survey. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Wise J. Show patients evidence for treatment “ add-ons, ” fertility clinics are told. BMJ 2019; 364: l226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cohen D. 'No solid evidence' for IVF add-on success. BBC Panorama. Accessed April 19, 2021 at: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38094618
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Heneghan C, Spencer EA, Bobrovitz N. et al. Lack of evidence for interventions offered in UK fertility centres. BMJ 2016; 355: i6295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. No Title. Accessed October 17, 2019 at: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/explore-all-treatments/treatment-add-ons/
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Throsby K. When IVF Fails: Feminism, Infertility and the Negotiation of Normality. Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2004
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Macklon NS, Ahuja KK, Fauser B. Building an evidence base for IVF 'add-ons'. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38 (06) 853-856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Greil A. Not Yet Pregnant: Infertile Couples in Contemporary America. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Letherby G. Other than mother and mothers as others: the experience of motherhood and non-motherhood in relation to 'infertility' and 'involuntary childlessness.'. Womens Stud Int Forum 1999; 22 (03) 359-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Becker G. The Elusive Embryo: How Men and Women Approach New Reproductive Technology. University of California Press; 2000
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Spar D. The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception. Harvard Business Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Mayes C, Williams J, Lipworth W. Conflicted hope: social egg freezing and clinical conflicts of interest. Health Sociol Rev 2018; 27 (01) 45-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sandelowski M. Compelled to try: the never-enough quality of conceptive technology. Med Anthropol Q 1991; 5 (01) 29-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schopen F. How IVF became a licence to print money. The Guardian 2018
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Ernst E. Why would anyone use an unproven or disproven therapy? A personal view. J R Soc Med 2009; 102 (10) 452-453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Barad DH. Worldwide decline of IVF birth rates and its probable causes. Hum Reprod Open 2019; 2019 (03) hoz017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Snyder CR. Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. J Couns Dev 1995; 73 (03) 355-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Averill JR, Catlin G, Chon KK. Rules of Hope. Springer Science and Business Media; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Miron-Shatz T, Holzer H, Revel A. et al. 'Luckily, I don't believe in statistics': survey of women's understanding of chance of success with futile fertility treatments. Reprod Biomed Online 2021; 42 (02) 463-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lancastle D, Boivin J. Dispositional optimism, trait anxiety, and coping: unique or shared effects on biological response to fertility treatment?. Health Psychol 2005; 24 (02) 171-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kim K, Lee YM. Understanding uncertainty in medicine: concepts and implications in medical education. Korean J Med Educ 2018; 30 (03) 181-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Szewczuk E. Age-related infertility: a tale of two technologies. Sociol Health Illn 2012; 34 (03) 429-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mackintosh N, Armstrong N. Understanding and managing uncertainty in health care: revisiting and advancing sociological contributions. Sociol Health Illn 2020; 42 (Suppl. 01) 1-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Beresford EB. Uncertainty and the shaping of medical decisions. Hastings Cent Rep 1991; 21 (04) 6-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dhawale T, Steuten LM, Deeg HJ. Uncertainty of physicians and patients in medical decision making. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2017; 23 (06) 865-869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fishel S, Group CF, House JW, Drive L, Park NB, Ng N. Evidence-based medicine and the role of the National Health Service in assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 27 (05) 568-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kahlor L, Mackert M. Perceptions of infertility information and support sources among female patients who access the Internet. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (01) 83-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Haagen EC, Tuil W, Hendriks J, de Bruijn RP, Braat DD, Kremer JA. Current Internet use and preferences of IVF and ICSI patients. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (10) 2073-2078
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Talarczyk J, Hauke J, Poniewaz M, Serdyńska-Szuster M, Pawelczyk L, Jedrzejczak P. [Internet as a source of information about infertility among infertile patients]. Ginekol Pol 2012; 83 (04) 250-254
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Coulter A, Collins A. Making Shared Decision Making a Reality: No Decision about Me without Me. London: 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 35 van Empel IW, Dancet EA, Koolman XH. et al. Physicians underestimate the importance of patient-centredness to patients: a discrete choice experiment in fertility care. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (03) 584-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Goodyear-Smith F, Buetow S. Power issues in the doctor-patient relationship. Health Care Anal 2001; 9 (04) 449-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Rauprich O, Berns E, Vollmann J. Information provision and decision-making in assisted reproduction treatment: results from a survey in Germany. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (09) 2382-2391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2007; 8 (02) 53-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Wilkinson J, Bhattacharya S, Duffy J. et al. Reproductive medicine: still more ART than science?. BJOG 2019; 126 (02) 138-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wilkinson J, Malpas P, Hammarberg K. et al. Do à la carte menus serve infertility patients? The ethics and regulation of in vitro fertility add-ons. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 (06) 973-977
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Riggan KA, Allyse M. 'Compassionate transfer': an alternative option for surplus embryo disposition. Hum Reprod 2019; 34 (05) 791-794
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Adrian SW. Psychological IVF: conceptualizing emotional choreography in a fertility clinic. Distinktion: Scandin J Social Theory 2015; 16 (03) 302-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA 1998; 279 (19) 1548-1553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Wapf V, André Busato A. Patients' motives for choosing a physician: comparison between conventional and complementary medicine in Swiss primary care. BMC Complement Altern Med 2007; 7: 41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Faircloth C, Gürtin ZB. Fertile connections: thinking across assisted reproductive technologies and parenting culture studies. Sociology 2018; 52 (05) 983-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Devlin H, Sample I. UK fertility regulator to issue new rules on expensive IVF add ons. The Guardian. Available at. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/09/uk-fertility-regulator-to-issue-new-rules-ivf-add-ons . Accessed June 29, 2021
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Strathern M. Reproducing the Future. Essays on Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Blakely B, Williams J, Mayes C, Kerridge I, Lipworth W. Conflicts of interest in Australia's IVF industry: an empirical analysis and call for action. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2017; 1-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Repping S. Evidence-based medicine and infertility treatment. Lancet 2019; 393 (10170): 380-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Pugh AJ. Longing and Belonging: Parents, children, and consumer culture. University of California Press; 2009
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 52 BioNews. 2021 An All-Consuming Problem? How to Protect Patients in the Fertility Market - BioNews. [online] Bionews.org.uk. Accessed April 1, 2021 at: https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_154180
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Martin LJ. Anticipating infertility: egg freezing, genetic preservation, and risk. Gend Soc 2010; 24 (04) 526-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Baldwin K. Ice, ice, baby? A sociological exploration of social egg freezing. PhD Thesis. De Montfort University; Leicester, United Kingdom: 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 55 Carroll K, Kroløkke C. Freezing for love: enacting 'responsible' reproductive citizenship through egg freezing. Cult Health Sex 2018; 20 (09) 992-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Petersen A, Wilkinson I. Editorial introduction: the sociology of hope in contexts of health, medicine, and healthcare. Health 2015; 19 (02) 113-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar