Cargando…

Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education

STUDY QUESTION: What are the long-term effects of fertility education on knowledge and reproductive outcome? SUMMARY ANSWER: Participants in the intervention group retained some knowledge after 2 years and the partnered women had a new child more quickly than the comparison group. WHAT IS KNOWN ALRE...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maeda, Eri, Boivin, Jacky, Toyokawa, Satoshi, Murata, Katsuyuki, Saito, Hidekazu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30265305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey293
_version_ 1783364459733975040
author Maeda, Eri
Boivin, Jacky
Toyokawa, Satoshi
Murata, Katsuyuki
Saito, Hidekazu
author_facet Maeda, Eri
Boivin, Jacky
Toyokawa, Satoshi
Murata, Katsuyuki
Saito, Hidekazu
author_sort Maeda, Eri
collection PubMed
description STUDY QUESTION: What are the long-term effects of fertility education on knowledge and reproductive outcome? SUMMARY ANSWER: Participants in the intervention group retained some knowledge after 2 years and the partnered women had a new child more quickly than the comparison group. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility education improves knowledge, at least in the short-term. Attitudes toward childbearing and its timing can change after exposure to educational materials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Participants were recruited via an online social research panel. In the original randomized controlled trial (RCT), knowledge of reproductive-aged participants was assessed before (T1) and immediately after (T2) receiving one of three information brochures: fertility (intervention group), healthy pre-pregnancy (focused on intake of folic acid during pregnancy, control group 1), or family policies in Japan (childcare provision, control group 2). The present follow-up study was conducted 2 years later in January 2017 (T3) with the same participants. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Of the T1 participants (n = 1455), 383 men and 360 women (51%) responded to the T3 survey. Fertility knowledge measured with the Japanese version of the Cardiff Fertility Knowledge Scale (CFKS-J) and fertility status (e.g. new births, new medical consultations, and the timing of new birth) was assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline (T1) characteristics of the T3 participants were well balanced between groups, but T3 participants were older, married, and more educated compared to those lost to follow-up. A repeated-measures analysis of variance showed significant knowledge gains among the intervention group from T1 to T3 (11.2% and 7.0% among men and women, respectively) but no significant change over time for the control groups. There were no differences between groups in the incidence of new births or new medical consultations. However, subgroup analysis showed that timing of new births was accelerated for partnered individuals in the intervention group. Specifically, the proportion of partnered participants at T1 who had a new birth in the first year subsequent to presentation of information was higher in the intervention group versus control group 1 (folic acid): 8.8% versus 1.4% (P = 0.09) among men and 10.6% versus 2.3% (P = 0.03) among women, respectively. The odds ratios (adjusted for age) were 7.8 (95% CI: 0.86–70.7) and 5.2 (95% CI: 1.09–25.0) among men and women, respectively. The timing of births and the proportion of new births during the 2-year follow-up period in the intervention group were similar to that of control group 2 (family policy). The incidence of new medical consultation was higher in the male intervention group (12.0%) than in male control group 2 (family policy, 1.5%, P = 0.04) but similar among women in all groups. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: First, the high attrition rate may limit the generalizability of these findings for longer-term acquisition of fertility knowledge, especially when applied to younger people who were more likely to be lost to follow-up. Second, this is a 2-year follow-up study and the results may change in the longer-term. Finally, we relied on self-reported questionnaire data and there is a possibility that some women were unknowingly pregnant at T1 but this risk should be distributed equally in the three groups through randomization. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Effects of one-time education were limited but retained beyond baseline levels. Importantly, education was found to potentially accelerate decision-making about achieving births in partnered subgroups compared to receiving healthy pre-pregnancy information. However, this finding should be confirmed in future stratified RCTs designed to evaluate effects in these subgroups. Follow-up ‘booster’ education sessions might help people retain knowledge and facilitate reproductive decisions for longer. In view of the high attrition rate, especially among young populations, novel educational strategies to retain young people in fertility education cohorts should be explored. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by National Center for Child Health and Development, the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation, Pfizer Health Research Foundation, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. E.M. reports joint research funds from a public interest incorporated foundation ‘1 more Baby Ohendan.’
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6195802
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61958022018-10-24 Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education Maeda, Eri Boivin, Jacky Toyokawa, Satoshi Murata, Katsuyuki Saito, Hidekazu Hum Reprod Original Article STUDY QUESTION: What are the long-term effects of fertility education on knowledge and reproductive outcome? SUMMARY ANSWER: Participants in the intervention group retained some knowledge after 2 years and the partnered women had a new child more quickly than the comparison group. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility education improves knowledge, at least in the short-term. Attitudes toward childbearing and its timing can change after exposure to educational materials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Participants were recruited via an online social research panel. In the original randomized controlled trial (RCT), knowledge of reproductive-aged participants was assessed before (T1) and immediately after (T2) receiving one of three information brochures: fertility (intervention group), healthy pre-pregnancy (focused on intake of folic acid during pregnancy, control group 1), or family policies in Japan (childcare provision, control group 2). The present follow-up study was conducted 2 years later in January 2017 (T3) with the same participants. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Of the T1 participants (n = 1455), 383 men and 360 women (51%) responded to the T3 survey. Fertility knowledge measured with the Japanese version of the Cardiff Fertility Knowledge Scale (CFKS-J) and fertility status (e.g. new births, new medical consultations, and the timing of new birth) was assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline (T1) characteristics of the T3 participants were well balanced between groups, but T3 participants were older, married, and more educated compared to those lost to follow-up. A repeated-measures analysis of variance showed significant knowledge gains among the intervention group from T1 to T3 (11.2% and 7.0% among men and women, respectively) but no significant change over time for the control groups. There were no differences between groups in the incidence of new births or new medical consultations. However, subgroup analysis showed that timing of new births was accelerated for partnered individuals in the intervention group. Specifically, the proportion of partnered participants at T1 who had a new birth in the first year subsequent to presentation of information was higher in the intervention group versus control group 1 (folic acid): 8.8% versus 1.4% (P = 0.09) among men and 10.6% versus 2.3% (P = 0.03) among women, respectively. The odds ratios (adjusted for age) were 7.8 (95% CI: 0.86–70.7) and 5.2 (95% CI: 1.09–25.0) among men and women, respectively. The timing of births and the proportion of new births during the 2-year follow-up period in the intervention group were similar to that of control group 2 (family policy). The incidence of new medical consultation was higher in the male intervention group (12.0%) than in male control group 2 (family policy, 1.5%, P = 0.04) but similar among women in all groups. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: First, the high attrition rate may limit the generalizability of these findings for longer-term acquisition of fertility knowledge, especially when applied to younger people who were more likely to be lost to follow-up. Second, this is a 2-year follow-up study and the results may change in the longer-term. Finally, we relied on self-reported questionnaire data and there is a possibility that some women were unknowingly pregnant at T1 but this risk should be distributed equally in the three groups through randomization. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Effects of one-time education were limited but retained beyond baseline levels. Importantly, education was found to potentially accelerate decision-making about achieving births in partnered subgroups compared to receiving healthy pre-pregnancy information. However, this finding should be confirmed in future stratified RCTs designed to evaluate effects in these subgroups. Follow-up ‘booster’ education sessions might help people retain knowledge and facilitate reproductive decisions for longer. In view of the high attrition rate, especially among young populations, novel educational strategies to retain young people in fertility education cohorts should be explored. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by National Center for Child Health and Development, the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation, Pfizer Health Research Foundation, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. E.M. reports joint research funds from a public interest incorporated foundation ‘1 more Baby Ohendan.’ Oxford University Press 2018-11 2018-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6195802/ /pubmed/30265305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey293 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Article
Maeda, Eri
Boivin, Jacky
Toyokawa, Satoshi
Murata, Katsuyuki
Saito, Hidekazu
Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education
title Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education
title_full Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education
title_fullStr Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education
title_full_unstemmed Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education
title_short Two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education
title_sort two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial: knowledge and reproductive outcome after online fertility education
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195802/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30265305
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey293
work_keys_str_mv AT maedaeri twoyearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrialknowledgeandreproductiveoutcomeafteronlinefertilityeducation
AT boivinjacky twoyearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrialknowledgeandreproductiveoutcomeafteronlinefertilityeducation
AT toyokawasatoshi twoyearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrialknowledgeandreproductiveoutcomeafteronlinefertilityeducation
AT muratakatsuyuki twoyearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrialknowledgeandreproductiveoutcomeafteronlinefertilityeducation
AT saitohidekazu twoyearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrialknowledgeandreproductiveoutcomeafteronlinefertilityeducation