Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is guided, targeted information about the risks of twin pregnancy able to increase the acceptance of single embryo transfer among IVF couples? A prospective study

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess whether receiving information about twin pregnancy in the form of oral presentation given by a physician could affect the acceptance of single embryo transfer (SET) by couples undergoing IVF.

Study design

Prospective interventional study.

Setting

University hospital IVF unit.

Patients

One hundred and forty patients (70 couples) undergoing IVF.

Interventions

A questionnaire to measure patients’ emotions about twin pregnancy was administered to IVF patients just before and immediately after attending a slide presentation in which the risks of twin pregnancy were explained. Patients scored (1 to 6) ten adjectives linked either to positive or negative emotions; scores before and after presentation were compared. The patients’ preference between double embryo transfer (DET) and SET was also registered before and after the presentation.

Results

The presentation about twin pregnancy caused a significant (p < 0.001) shift of the score distribution toward lower values for positive adjectives referred to twin pregnancy and higher values for negative adjectives. Information impacted similarly on women and men. Despite the relevant change in the emotional attitude, after presentation, 45.7% of women and 48.6% of men were still favorable to DET, whereas 24.3% of women and 37.1% of men preferred SET.

Conclusions

Oral information on the risks of twin pregnancy can affect the emotional attitude of patients toward twin pregnancy, but the wish of getting pregnant after fresh embryo transfer overcomes all rational consideration, and the majority of patients still prefer DET.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Campbell DM, Templeton A. Maternal complications of twin pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;84:71–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wadhawan R, Oh W, Perritt RL, McDonald SA, Das A, Poole WK, et al. Twin gestation and neurodevelopmental outcome in extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics. 2009;123:220–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Santana DS, Silveira C, Costa ML, Souza RT, Surita FG, Souza JP, et al. WHO Multi-Country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health Research Network. Perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies complicated by maternal morbidity: evidence from the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18:449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bergh C, Ericson A, Hillensjo T, Nygren KG, Wennerholm UB. Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982-95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 1999;354:1579–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dhont SS, Ruyssinck G, Martens G, Bekaert A. Perinatal outcome of pregnancies after assisted reproduction: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:688–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Olivennes F. Double trouble: yes a twin pregnancy is an adverse outcome. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1663–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stromberg B, Dahlquist G, Ericson A, Finnstrom O, Koster M, Stjernqvist K. Neurological sequelae in children born after in-vitro fertilisation: a population-based study. Lancet. 2002;359:461–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kinzler WL, Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM. Medical and economic effects of twin gestations. J Soc Gynecol Investig. 2000;7:321–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lukassen HG, Schönbeck Y, Adang EM, Braat DD, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA. Cost analysis of singleton versus twin pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1240–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cain JM. Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. Ethical guidelines in the prevention of iatrogenic multiple pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000;71:293–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35:511–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vilska S, Tiitinen A, Hydén-Granskog C, Hovatta O. Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk of multiple births. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2392–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ezugwu E, der Burg SV. Debating elective single embryo transfer after in vitro fertilization: a plea for a context-sensitive approach. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2015;5:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mc Lernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, de Neubourg D, Dumoulin JC, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Grady R, Alavi N, Vale R, Khandwala M, McDonald SD. Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:324–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Højgaard A, Ottosen LD, Kesmodel U, Ingerslev HJ. Patient attitudes towards twin pregnancies and single embryo transfer - a questionnaire study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2673–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. MdLatar IL, Razali N. The desire for multiple pregnancy among patients with infertility and their partners. Int J Reprod Med. 2014;2014:301452.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mendoza R, Jáuregui T, Diaz-Nuñez M, de la Sota M, Hidalgo A, Ferrando M, et al. Infertile couples prefer twins: analysis of their reasons and clinical characteristics related to this preference. J Reprod Fertil. 2018;19:167–73.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ryan GL, Sparks AE, Sipe CS, Syrop CH, Dokras A, Van Voorhis BJ. A mandatory single blastocyst transfer policy with educational campaign in a United States IVF program reduces multiple gestation rates without sacrificing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:354–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Murray S, Shetty A, Rattray A, Taylor V, Bhattacharya S. A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2004;4:911–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Newton CR, McBride J, Feyles V, Tekpetey F, Power S. Factors affecting patients’ attitudes toward single- and multiple-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:269–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pinborg A, Loft A, Schmidt L, Andersen AN. Attitudes of IVF/ICSI-twin mothers towards twins and single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2003;3:621–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Child TJ, Henderson AM, Tan LS. The desire for multiple pregnancy in male and female infertility patients. Hum Reprod. 2004;3:558–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ryan GL, Zhang SH, Dokras A, Syrop CH, Van Voorhis BJ. The desire of infertile patients for multiple births. Fertil Steril. 2004;3:500–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. D’Alton M. Infertility and the desire for multiple births. Fertil Steril. 2004;3:523–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gynecology and Obstetrics, Department of Applied and Biotechnological Clinical Sciences, San Salvatore Hospital, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

    Martina Masciovecchio

  2. Gynecology and Obstetrics 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant’Anna Hospital, University of Turin, Via Ventimiglia 3, 10126, Turin, Italy

    Carlotta Scarafia, Alessandra Razzano, Stefano Canosa, Gianluca Gennarelli, Andrea Roberto Carosso, Chiara Benedetto & Alberto Revelli

Authors
  1. Martina Masciovecchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlotta Scarafia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandra Razzano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefano Canosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gianluca Gennarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrea Roberto Carosso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chiara Benedetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alberto Revelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Revelli.

Ethics declarations

This study was approved S. Anna Hospital review board (approval number CS2/1199), and a written informed consent was given to all couples who accepted to participate in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 27 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masciovecchio, M., Scarafia, C., Razzano, A. et al. Is guided, targeted information about the risks of twin pregnancy able to increase the acceptance of single embryo transfer among IVF couples? A prospective study. J Assist Reprod Genet 37, 1669–1674 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01820-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01820-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation