Cited by 50Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsReproductive Health and TechnologiesAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy

First effective mHealth nutrition and lifestyle coaching program for subfertile couples undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment: a single-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial

Open access
Oostingh, Elsje C., Koster, Maria P.H., van Dijk, Matthijs R., Willemsen, Sten P., Broekmans, Frank J.M., Hoek, Annemieke, Goddijn, Marriëte, Klijn, Nicole F. +4 more·2020·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

Objective To study compliance and effectiveness of the mHealth nutrition and lifestyle coaching program Smarter Pregnancy in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).Design Multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial, conducted from July 2014 to March 2017.Setting IVF clinics.Patient(s) A total of 626 women undergoing IVF treatment with or without ICSI and 222 male partners.Interventions(s) Couples were randomly assigned to the light (control group) or regular (intervention group) Smarter Pregnancy program. Both groups filled out a baseline screening questionnaire on nutrition and lifestyle behaviors, and the intervention group received coaching tailored to inadequate behaviors during the 24-week period.Main outcome measure(s) Difference in improvement of a composite dietary and lifestyle risk score for the intake of vegetables, fruits, folic acid supplements, smoking, and alcohol use after 24 weeks of the program.Result(s) Compared with control subjects, women and men in the intervention group showed a significantly larger improvement of inadequate nutrition behaviors after 24 weeks of coaching. At the same time, the women also showed a significantly larger improvement of inadequate lifestyle behaviors.Conclusion(s) The mHealth coaching program Smarter Pregnancy is effective and improves the most important nutritional and lifestyle behaviors among couples undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. International multicenter randomized trials are recommended to study the effect of using Smarter Pregnancy on pregnancy, live birth, and neonatal outcome.Netherlands trial register number NTR4150.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.04.051

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Oostingh 2020 reported an RR of 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.05) for clinical pregnancy in 626 participants.

    “Oostingh 2020 reported an RR of 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.05) in 626 participants.”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Oostingh 2020

  • Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the proportion of women not smoking (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04; 1 RCT, 606 participants; low-quality evidence).

    “Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the proportion of women not smoking (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04; 1 RCT, 606 participants; low-quality evidence).”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Oostingh 2020

  • The effect of preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics on the number of men not smoking is uncertain (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 212 participants; very low-quality evidence).

    “We are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics affects the number of men not smoking (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 212 participants; very low-quality evidence).”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Oostingh 2020

  • The review included only one study that had invited male participants (Oostingh 2020).

    “In our review, we included only one study that had invited male participants (Oostingh 2020).”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Oostingh 2020

  • In Oostingh 2020, at 6 months, men in the experimental group had a higher rate of adequate fruit intake (>2 pieces/d) than control, with a risk ratio of 1.57 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.04).

    “Men: 67/103 in experimental group 46/111 in control group RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.04”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Oostingh 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oostingh, E. C., Koster, M. P. H., van Dijk, M. R., Willemsen, S. P., Broekmans, F. J. M., Hoek, A., Goddijn, M., Klijn, N. F., van Santbrink, E. J. P., Steegers, E. A. P., Laven, J. S. E., & Steegers-Theunissen, R. P. M.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
114
Issue
5
Pages
945-954
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3046676119
Cited by
50
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • ZonMw
  • Erasmus Medisch Centrum
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Keywords
mobile health, nutrition coaching, lifestyle coaching, in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, subfertility, couples, dietary behavior, fruit and vegetable intake, folic acid supplementation, smoking, alcohol consumption, mobile health intervention
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Adult, Family Characteristics, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Infertility, Male, Netherlands, Pregnancy, Nutrition Assessment, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine, Risk Reduction Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review