Assessment of society for assisted reproductive technology (SART) fertility clinic websites for male infertility information and resources

Abstract

ObjectiveThe Internet is often a primary source of information for infertility patients; however, there is little data assessing the quality of this material especially aimed at male infertility. Our objective was to evaluate SART-member fertility clinic websites for availability and context of information regarding male factor infertility.DesignCross-sectional evaluation.Materials and MethodsBetween 2/2014-4/4014, 396 SART-member fertility clinic websites were evaluated by two independent researchers. Websites were surveyed for the following characteristics: practice location, type, and size, along with general information on male infertility, male factor treatment options, male sexual dysfunction, fertility preservation, cost of treatment, and the presence of an onsite male infertility specialist. Chi-square tests were used to assess for differences between groups.Results98%(387/396) of clinics had a website, of which 80% were private and 20% academic centers. 26% of practices performed ≥500 cycles/year while 74% performed <500 cycles/year. 88% of websites provided general information on male infertility and 83% reviewed male treatment options. 65% of websites discussed surgical treatment and 32% discussed microsurgery. 15% of fertility clinics advertised a male infertility specialist as part of their practice. 17% provided information on male sexual dysfunction. 55% of clinics offered male fertility preservation services. 3% of websites discussed the cost of male infertility treatments. Compared to private practices, academic centers were more likely to have a male specialist on staff (30% vs 11%, p<.001). There was no difference between academic and private practices in the presentation of general treatment options, surgical treatment, microsurgery, or discussion of sexual dysfunction (p>.05). Large volume practices were more likely to discuss male sexual dysfunction (26% vs 14%, p=.006), but there were no differences regarding general treatment options, surgery or microsurgery compared to small practices (p>.05). Practices with a male specialist were more likely to offer microsurgery (60% vs 26%, p<.001) and more likely to discuss sexual dysfunction (39% vs 13%, p.001).ConclusionAlthough a male factor component can affect 50% of infertile couples, our data shows that there is still a significant lack of patient information regarding specific treatment options among SART clinic websites. While the presence of a male specialist onsite significantly improves available information, only 15% of clinics offer a male specialist as part of their practice. ObjectiveThe Internet is often a primary source of information for infertility patients; however, there is little data assessing the quality of this material especially aimed at male infertility. Our objective was to evaluate SART-member fertility clinic websites for availability and context of information regarding male factor infertility. The Internet is often a primary source of information for infertility patients; however, there is little data assessing the quality of this material especially aimed at male infertility. Our objective was to evaluate SART-member fertility clinic websites for availability and context of information regarding male factor infertility. DesignCross-sectional evaluation. Cross-sectional evaluation. Materials and MethodsBetween 2/2014-4/4014, 396 SART-member fertility clinic websites were evaluated by two independent researchers. Websites were surveyed for the following characteristics: practice location, type, and size, along with general information on male infertility, male factor treatment options, male sexual dysfunction, fertility preservation, cost of treatment, and the presence of an onsite male infertility specialist. Chi-square tests were used to assess for differences between groups. Between 2/2014-4/4014, 396 SART-member fertility clinic websites were evaluated by two independent researchers. Websites were surveyed for the following characteristics: practice location, type, and size, along with general information on male infertility, male factor treatment options, male sexual dysfunction, fertility preservation, cost of treatment, and the presence of an onsite male infertility specialist. Chi-square tests were used to assess for differences between groups. Results98%(387/396) of clinics had a website, of which 80% were private and 20% academic centers. 26% of practices performed ≥500 cycles/year while 74% performed <500 cycles/year. 88% of websites provided general information on male infertility and 83% reviewed male treatment options. 65% of websites discussed surgical treatment and 32% discussed microsurgery. 15% of fertility clinics advertised a male infertility specialist as part of their practice. 17% provided information on male sexual dysfunction. 55% of clinics offered male fertility preservation services. 3% of websites discussed the cost of male infertility treatments. Compared to private practices, academic centers were more likely to have a male specialist on staff (30% vs 11%, p<.001). There was no difference between academic and private practices in the presentation of general treatment options, surgical treatment, microsurgery, or discussion of sexual dysfunction (p>.05). Large volume practices were more likely to discuss male sexual dysfunction (26% vs 14%, p=.006), but there were no differences regarding general treatment options, surgery or microsurgery compared to small practices (p>.05). Practices with a male specialist were more likely to offer microsurgery (60% vs 26%, p<.001) and more likely to discuss sexual dysfunction (39% vs 13%, p.001). 98%(387/396) of clinics had a website, of which 80% were private and 20% academic centers. 26% of practices performed ≥500 cycles/year while 74% performed <500 cycles/year. 88% of websites provided general information on male infertility and 83% reviewed male treatment options. 65% of websites discussed surgical treatment and 32% discussed microsurgery. 15% of fertility clinics advertised a male infertility specialist as part of their practice. 17% provided information on male sexual dysfunction. 55% of clinics offered male fertility preservation services. 3% of websites discussed the cost of male infertility treatments. Compared to private practices, academic centers were more likely to have a male specialist on staff (30% vs 11%, p<.001). There was no difference between academic and private practices in the presentation of general treatment options, surgical treatment, microsurgery, or discussion of sexual dysfunction (p>.05). Large volume practices were more likely to discuss male sexual dysfunction (26% vs 14%, p=.006), but there were no differences regarding general treatment options, surgery or microsurgery compared to small practices (p>.05). Practices with a male specialist were more likely to offer microsurgery (60% vs 26%, p<.001) and more likely to discuss sexual dysfunction (39% vs 13%, p.001). ConclusionAlthough a male factor component can affect 50% of infertile couples, our data shows that there is still a significant lack of patient information regarding specific treatment options among SART clinic websites. While the presence of a male specialist onsite significantly improves available information, only 15% of clinics offer a male specialist as part of their practice. Although a male factor component can affect 50% of infertile couples, our data shows that there is still a significant lack of patient information regarding specific treatment options among SART clinic websites. While the presence of a male specialist onsite significantly improves available information, only 15% of clinics offer a male specialist as part of their practice.