Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Care | Research

Exploring gender differences among couples with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss regarding preferences for supportive care

Authors: N. A. du Fossé, E. E. L. O. Lashley, T. T. Treurniet, J. M. M. van Lith, S. le Cessie, H. Boosman, M. L. P. van der Hoorn

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

International guidelines recommend to offer supportive care during a next pregnancy to couples affected by recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). In previous research, several options for supportive care have been identified and women’s preferences have been quantified. Although it is known that RPL impacts the mental health of both partners, male preferences for supportive care have hardly been explored.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in couples who visited a specialized RPL clinic in the Netherlands between November 2018 and December 2019. Both members of the couples received a questionnaire that quantified their preferences for supportive care in a next pregnancy and they were asked to complete this independently from each other. Preferences for each supportive care option were analysed on a group level (by gender) and on a couple level, by comparing preferences of both partners.

Results

Ninety-two questionnaires (completed by 46 couples) were analysed. The overall need for supportive care indicated on a scale from 1 to 10 was 6.8 for men and 7.9 for women (P = 0.002). Both genders preferred to regularly see the same doctor with knowledge of their obstetric history, to make a plan for the first trimester and to have frequent ultrasound examinations. A lower proportion of men preferred a doctor that shows understanding (80% of men vs. 100% of women, P = 0.004) and a doctor that informs on wellbeing (72% vs. 100%, P = ≤0.000). Fewer men preferred support from friends (48% vs. 74%, P = 0.017). Thirty-seven percent of men requested more involvement of the male partner at the outpatient clinic, compared to 70% of women (P = 0.007). In 28% of couples, partners had opposing preferences regarding peer support.

Conclusions

While both women and men affected by RPL are in need of supportive care, their preferences may differ. Current supportive care services may not entirely address the needs of men. Health care professionals should focus on both partners and development of novel supportive care programs with specific attention for men should be considered.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bender Atik R, Christiansen OB, Elson J, Kolte AM, Lewis S, Middeldorp S, et al. ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;2018(2):hoy004.CrossRef Bender Atik R, Christiansen OB, Elson J, Kolte AM, Lewis S, Middeldorp S, et al. ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;2018(2):hoy004.CrossRef
2.
3.
go back to reference Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1103–11. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1103–11.
4.
go back to reference Jaslow CR, Carney JL, Kutteh WH. Diagnostic factors identified in 1020 women with two versus three or more recurrent pregnancy losses. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1234–43.CrossRef Jaslow CR, Carney JL, Kutteh WH. Diagnostic factors identified in 1020 women with two versus three or more recurrent pregnancy losses. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1234–43.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Voss P, Schick M, Langer L, Ainsworth A, Ditzen B, Strowitzki T, et al. Recurrent pregnancy loss: a shared stressor---couple-orientated psychological research findings. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(6):1288–96.CrossRef Voss P, Schick M, Langer L, Ainsworth A, Ditzen B, Strowitzki T, et al. Recurrent pregnancy loss: a shared stressor---couple-orientated psychological research findings. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(6):1288–96.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Youssef A, Vermeulen N, Lashley EELO, Goddijn M, van der Hoorn MLP. Comparison and appraisal of (inter)national recurrent pregnancy loss guidelines. Reprod BioMed Online. 2019;39(3):497–503.CrossRef Youssef A, Vermeulen N, Lashley EELO, Goddijn M, van der Hoorn MLP. Comparison and appraisal of (inter)national recurrent pregnancy loss guidelines. Reprod BioMed Online. 2019;39(3):497–503.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Clifford K, Rai R, Regan L. Future pregnancy outcome in unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 1997;12(2):387–9.CrossRef Clifford K, Rai R, Regan L. Future pregnancy outcome in unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 1997;12(2):387–9.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Whitley KA, Ural SH. Treatment modalities in recurrent miscarriages without diagnosis. Semin Reprod Med. 2014;32(04):319–22.CrossRef Whitley KA, Ural SH. Treatment modalities in recurrent miscarriages without diagnosis. Semin Reprod Med. 2014;32(04):319–22.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Habayeb OMH, Konje JC. The one-stop recurrent miscarriage clinic: an evaluation of its effectiveness and outcome. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2952–8.CrossRef Habayeb OMH, Konje JC. The one-stop recurrent miscarriage clinic: an evaluation of its effectiveness and outcome. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2952–8.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Liddell HS, Pattison NS, Zanderigo A. Recurrent miscarriage--outcome after supportive care in early pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;31(4):320–2.CrossRef Liddell HS, Pattison NS, Zanderigo A. Recurrent miscarriage--outcome after supportive care in early pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;31(4):320–2.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Koert E, Malling GMH, Sylvest R, Krog MC, Kolte AM, Schmidt L, et al. Recurrent pregnancy loss: couples’ perspectives on their need for treatment, support and follow up. Hum Reprod. 2018;34(2):291–6.CrossRef Koert E, Malling GMH, Sylvest R, Krog MC, Kolte AM, Schmidt L, et al. Recurrent pregnancy loss: couples’ perspectives on their need for treatment, support and follow up. Hum Reprod. 2018;34(2):291–6.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Musters AM, Taminiau-Bloem EF, van den Boogaard E, van der Veen F, Goddijn M. Supportive care for women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage: patients’ perspectives. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2011;26(4):873–7.CrossRef Musters AM, Taminiau-Bloem EF, van den Boogaard E, van der Veen F, Goddijn M. Supportive care for women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage: patients’ perspectives. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2011;26(4):873–7.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Musters AM, Koot YE, van den Boogaard NM, Kaaijk E, Macklon NS, van der Veen F, et al. Supportive care for women with recurrent miscarriage: a survey to quantify women’s preferences. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2013;28(2):398–405.CrossRef Musters AM, Koot YE, van den Boogaard NM, Kaaijk E, Macklon NS, van der Veen F, et al. Supportive care for women with recurrent miscarriage: a survey to quantify women’s preferences. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2013;28(2):398–405.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference van den Berg MMJ, Dancet EAF, Erlikh T, van der Veen F, Goddijn M, Hajenius PJ. Patient-centered early pregnancy care: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies on the perspectives of women and their partners. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24(1):106–18.CrossRef van den Berg MMJ, Dancet EAF, Erlikh T, van der Veen F, Goddijn M, Hajenius PJ. Patient-centered early pregnancy care: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies on the perspectives of women and their partners. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24(1):106–18.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Alio AP, Lewis CA, Scarborough K, Harris K, Fiscella K. A community perspective on the role of fathers during pregnancy: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13(1):60.CrossRef Alio AP, Lewis CA, Scarborough K, Harris K, Fiscella K. A community perspective on the role of fathers during pregnancy: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13(1):60.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kashanian M, Faghankhani M, Hadizadeh H, Salehi MM, Roshan MY, Pour ME, et al. Psychosocial and biological paternal role in pregnancy outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(2):243–52.CrossRef Kashanian M, Faghankhani M, Hadizadeh H, Salehi MM, Roshan MY, Pour ME, et al. Psychosocial and biological paternal role in pregnancy outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(2):243–52.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cheng ER, Rifas-Shiman SL, Perkins ME, Rich-Edwards JW, Gillman MW, Wright R, et al. The influence of antenatal partner support on pregnancy outcomes. J Women’s Health (2002). 2016;25(7):672–9.CrossRef Cheng ER, Rifas-Shiman SL, Perkins ME, Rich-Edwards JW, Gillman MW, Wright R, et al. The influence of antenatal partner support on pregnancy outcomes. J Women’s Health (2002). 2016;25(7):672–9.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Due C, Chiarolli S, Riggs DW. The impact of pregnancy loss on men's health and wellbeing: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):380.CrossRef Due C, Chiarolli S, Riggs DW. The impact of pregnancy loss on men's health and wellbeing: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):380.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Kong GW, Chung TK, Lai BP, Lok IH. Gender comparison of psychological reaction after miscarriage-a 1-year longitudinal study. BJOG. 2010;117(10):1211–9.CrossRef Kong GW, Chung TK, Lai BP, Lok IH. Gender comparison of psychological reaction after miscarriage-a 1-year longitudinal study. BJOG. 2010;117(10):1211–9.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kagami M, Maruyama T, Koizumi T, Miyazaki K, Nishikawa-Uchida S, Oda H, et al. Psychological adjustment and psychosocial stress among Japanese couples with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2012;27(3):787–94.CrossRef Kagami M, Maruyama T, Koizumi T, Miyazaki K, Nishikawa-Uchida S, Oda H, et al. Psychological adjustment and psychosocial stress among Japanese couples with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2012;27(3):787–94.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Obst KL, Due C, Oxlad M, Middleton P. Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):11.CrossRef Obst KL, Due C, Oxlad M, Middleton P. Men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal loss: a systematic review and emerging theoretical model. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):11.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Obst KL, Oxlad M, Due C, Middleton P. Factors contributing to men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal death: further development of an emerging model in an Australian sample. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):29.CrossRef Obst KL, Oxlad M, Due C, Middleton P. Factors contributing to men’s grief following pregnancy loss and neonatal death: further development of an emerging model in an Australian sample. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):29.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Miller EJ, Temple-Smith MJ, Bilardi JE. There was just no-one there to acknowledge that it happened to me as well’: a qualitative study of male partner's experience of miscarriage. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0217395.CrossRef Miller EJ, Temple-Smith MJ, Bilardi JE. There was just no-one there to acknowledge that it happened to me as well’: a qualitative study of male partner's experience of miscarriage. PLoS One. 2019;14(5):e0217395.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Obst KL, Due C. Australian men’s experiences of support following pregnancy loss: a qualitative study. Midwifery. 2019;70:1–6.CrossRef Obst KL, Due C. Australian men’s experiences of support following pregnancy loss: a qualitative study. Midwifery. 2019;70:1–6.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference O'Leary J, Thorwick C. Fathers’ perspectives during pregnancy, postperinatal loss. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2006;35(1):78–86.CrossRef O'Leary J, Thorwick C. Fathers’ perspectives during pregnancy, postperinatal loss. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2006;35(1):78–86.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference McCreight BS. A grief ignored: narratives of pregnancy loss from a male perspective. Sociol Health Illn. 2004;26(3):326–50.CrossRef McCreight BS. A grief ignored: narratives of pregnancy loss from a male perspective. Sociol Health Illn. 2004;26(3):326–50.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Williams HM, Jones LL, Coomarasamy A, Topping AE. Men living through multiple miscarriages: protocol for a qualitative exploration of experiences and support requirements. BMJ Open. 2020;10(5):e035967.CrossRef Williams HM, Jones LL, Coomarasamy A, Topping AE. Men living through multiple miscarriages: protocol for a qualitative exploration of experiences and support requirements. BMJ Open. 2020;10(5):e035967.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Exploring gender differences among couples with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss regarding preferences for supportive care
Authors
N. A. du Fossé
E. E. L. O. Lashley
T. T. Treurniet
J. M. M. van Lith
S. le Cessie
H. Boosman
M. L. P. van der Hoorn
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keywords
Care
Miscarriage
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04277-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2021 Go to the issue