↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A questionnaire-based audit to assess overall experience and convenience among patients using vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest®) for luteal phase support during IVF treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Patient related outcome measures, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
A questionnaire-based audit to assess overall experience and convenience among patients using vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest®) for luteal phase support during IVF treatment
Published in
Patient related outcome measures, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/prom.s140678
Pubmed ID
Authors

Polly Heine, Laura Sellar, Sue Whitten, Priti Bajaj

Abstract

The aim of this audit was to assess the overall experience and patient convenience of vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest®, marketed as Endometrin® in the USA) used for luteal phase support (LPS) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. This questionnaire-based audit included responses from 100 patients undergoing IVF treatment at six IVF clinics in the UK from September 2015 to November 2016. Fourteen days after starting progesterone supplementation for LPS during their IVF treatment, patients rated overall experience and perceived convenience of the prescribed progesterone by completing a questionnaire. Of the 100 patients included, 96 received vaginal progesterone tablets for LPS. Overall, 53.1% (51/96) indicated that the progesterone tablets were "very easy" to use; 42.7% (41/96) and 44.8% (43/96) found it "very convenient" or "neither convenient or inconvenient" to administer the tablet, respectively. Overall experience with using progesterone tablets was rated as "very comfortable" by 34.4% (33/96) and "neither comfortable or uncomfortable" by 56.3% (54/96) of patients. The applicator was used by 93.8% (90/96) of patients to administer the tablet, and 86.5% (83/96) indicated that the applicator was easy to clean for repeated use. A total of 33 patients had a previous IVF cycle during which they were prescribed vaginal progesterone pessaries for LPS. Compared with progesterone pessaries, the majority found treatment with progesterone tablets to be more comfortable (60.6%; 20/33) and more convenient (57.6%; 19/33) and indicated that the progesterone tablet was their preferred progesterone formulation for LPS (60.6%; 20/33). These findings offer insights into real-world patient experiences with the progesterone vaginal tablet formulation. The results suggest overall patient convenience, ease, and comfort with using progesterone vaginal tablets for LPS. The majority of patients found progesterone vaginal tablets more convenient and comfortable to use compared with progesterone pessaries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 50%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#114
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,317
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.