Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 65–72 | Cite as

Comparing patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of elective single embryo transfer using the attitudes to a twin IVF pregnancy scale (ATIPS)

  • Vibha Rai
  • Amanda Betsworth
  • Charlotte Beer
  • George Ndukwe
  • Cris Glazebrook
Assisted Reproduction



This study evaluated a questionnaire originally developed for use with health professionals to explore and compare patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions of elective single embryo transfer and twin births.


IVF clinicians and patients attending an independent Fertility clinic were surveyed using the Attitudes to a twin birth scale (ATIPS) comprising two subscales: attitudes to twins (A-Twin) and attitudes to elective single embryo transfer (A-SET). After refinement total sample scores showed both subscales were reliable with Cronbach’s alpha >0.8 and item-total correlations >0.35.


Questionnaires were completed by 100 female IVF patients and 17 IVF clinicians. A-Twin subscale scores indicated neither the IVF clinicians nor female IVF patients demonstrated very positive attitudes to a twin birth although the IVF female patients were more in favour (t = 5.29, n = 117, p = <0.001). Responses suggest both groups would benefit from increased information about the risks of a twin birth for the baby. First cycle IVF female patients were significantly more positive about eSET (z = 3.94, n = 100, p = <0.001). Clinicians perceive both their colleagues’ and female patients’ negativity towards eSET; suggesting a role for education.


This study found the ATIPS to be a reliable measure which could be useful in evaluating interventions to promote single embryo transfer.


Twins Elective single embryo transfer IVF 


  1. 1.
    National Statistics. Birth Statistics: Review of the Registrar General on births and patterns of family building in England and Wales 2006 Series FMI no 36. 2007 [cited 07.07.2009]; Available from:
  2. 2.
    Hamilton BE et al. Annual Summary of Vital Statistics. Pediatrics. 2005;119(2):345–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beemsterboer SN et al. The paradox of declining fertility but increasing twinning rates with advancing maternal age. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(6):1531–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pinborg A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(6):575–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    HFEA. Fertility problems and treatment—facts and figures. 2006 [cited 2006 27.06.2006]; Available from:
  6. 6.
    Marlow N et al. Neurological and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. New Engl J Med. 2005;352(1):9–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ESHRE. Prevention of twin pregnancies after IVF/ICSI by single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(4):790–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McDonald S et al. Perinatal outcomes of in vitro fertilization twins: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Am J Obst Gynecol. 2005;193(1):141–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell DM, Templeton A. Maternal complications of twin pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;84(1):71–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smithers PR et al. High frequency of cesarean section, antepartum hemorrhage, placenta previa, and preterm delivery in in-vitro fertilization twin pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(3):666–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Olivennes F et al. Behavioral and cognitive development as well as family functioning of twins conceived by assisted reproduction: findings from a large population study. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(3):725–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ellison MA et al. Psychosocial risks associated with multiple births resulting from assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(5):1422–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glazebrook C et al. Parenting stress in first-time mothers of twins and triplets conceived after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):505–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saldeen P, Sundstrom P. Would legislation imposing single embryo transfer be a feasible way to reduce the rate of multiple pregnancies after IVF treatment? Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):4–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reynolds MA, Schieve LA. Trends in embryo transfer practices and multiple gestation for IVF procedures in the USA, 1996-2002. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(3):694–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Braude, P. One child at a time: reducing multiple births after IVF. 2006, Expert group on multiple births after IVF.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glazebrook C et al. Attitudes of infertile couples to a multiple birth; a review of the literature and results from a survey. Curr Womens Health Rev. 2007;3(1):43–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Twisk M et al. Preferences of subfertile women regarding elective single embryo transfer: additional in vitro fertilization cycles are acceptable, lower pregnancy rates are not. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(4):1006–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murray S et al. A randomized comparison of alternative methods of imformaton provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(4):911–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Porter M, Bhattacharya S. Investigation of staff and patients’ opinions of a proposed trial of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(9):2523–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newton CR et al. Factors affecting patients’ attitudes toward single- and multiple-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(2):269–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pinborg A et al. Attitudes of IVF/ICSI-twin mothers towards twins and single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(3):621–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bergh C et al. Attitudes towards and management of single embryo transfer among Nordic IVF doctors. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2007;86:1222–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Wely M et al. Is twin pregnancy necessarily an adverse outcome of assisted reproductive technologies? Hum Reprod. 2006;21(11):2736–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gleicher N, Barad D. Twin pregnancy, contrary to consensus, is a desirable outcome in infertility. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2426–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blennborn M et al. The couple’s decision-making in IVF: one or two embryos at transfer? Hum Reprod. 2005;20(5):1292–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Lacey S et al. Factors and perceptions that influence women’s decisions to have a single embryo transferred. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;15(5):526–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Peperstraten AM et al. Perceived barriers to elective single embryo transfer among IVF professionals: a national survey. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2718–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grobman WA et al. Patient perceptions of multiple gestations: an assessment of knowledge and risk aversion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(4):920–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Child T, Henderson A, Tan S. The desire for mulitple pregnancy in male and female infertility patients. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(3):558–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ryan GL et al. The desire of infertile patients for multiple births. Fertili Steril. 2004;81(3):500–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hartshorne GM, Lilford RJ. Different perspectives of patients and health care professionals on the potential benefits and risks of blastocyst culture and multiple embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(4):1023–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ryan GL et al. 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(2):354–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hojgaard A et al. Patient attitudes towards twin pregnancies and single embryo transfer—a questionnaire study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(10):2673–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Borkenhagen A, Brahler E, Kentenich H. Attitudes of German infertile couples towards multiple births and elective embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(11):2883–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rai V, Glazebrook C. Abstracts and posters presented at the 27th annual conference of the Society for Reproductive and Infant Psychology: development and preliminary validation of the attitudes to twin pregnancies scale. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2007;25(3):243.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pinborg A et al. Consequences of vanishing twins in IVF/ICSI pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(10):2821–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gleicher N et al. The desire for multiple births in couples with infertility problems contradicts present practice patterns. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(5):1079–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lampic C, Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjo G. Attitudes towards gamete donation among IVF doctors in the Nordic countries-are they in line with national legislation? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(5):231–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    HFEA. Success rates 2010 [cited 2010 18.03.2010]; Available from:
  41. 41.
    Maheshwari A, Griffiths S, Bhattacharya S. Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;00:1–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vibha Rai
    • 1
  • Amanda Betsworth
    • 1
  • Charlotte Beer
    • 1
  • George Ndukwe
    • 2
  • Cris Glazebrook
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of PsychiatryUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.CARE FertilityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations