Cited by 52Reproductive Health and TechnologiesHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityDigital Mental Health Interventions

Patient-focused Internet interventions in reproductive medicine: a scoping review

Open access
Aarts, J.W.M., van den Haak, P., Nelen, W.L.D.M., Tuil, W.S., Faber, M.J., Kremer, J.A.M.·2012·Human Reproduction Update

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Internet has revolutionized fertility care since it became a popular source of information and support for infertile patients in the last decade. The aim of this scoping review is to map (i) the main categories of patient-focused Internet interventions within fertility care, (ii) the detailed composition of the interventions and (iii) how these interventions were evaluated. METHODS: A literature search used various 'Internet' and 'Infertility' search terms to identify relevant studies published up to 1 September 2011. The selected studies had to include patients facing infertility and using an infertility-related Internet intervention. We charted data regarding categories of interventions, components of interventions and evaluation methodology. We categorized the stages of research using the UK's Medical Research Council framework for evaluating complex interventions. RESULTS: We included 20 studies and identified 3 educational interventions, 2 self-help interventions, 1 human-supported therapeutic intervention, 9 online support groups and 2 counselling services. Information provision, support and mental health promotion were common aims. Few interactive online components were present in the online programmes. Three studies were in the pilot phase and 17 were in the evaluation phase. CONCLUSIONS: Several categories of patient-focused Internet-based interventions in fertility care are primarily applied to provide support and education and promote mental health. The interventions could be improved by using more interactive and dynamic elements as their key components. Finally, more emphasis on methodological standards for complex interventions is needed to produce more rigorous evaluations. This review shows where further development or research into patient-focused Internet interventions in fertility-care practice may be warranted.

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 · 10.1093/humupd/dmr045

Cites

112 of 112 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

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

3 of the 115 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. National CASP Collaboration for Qualitative Methodologies. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). 10 Questions to Help You Make Sense of Qualitative Research. Oxford, UK. Public Health Research Unit, 2006.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aarts, J. W. M., van den Haak, P., Nelen, W. L. D. M., Tuil, W. S., Faber, M. J., & Kremer, J. A. M.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Kremer, J.A.M.
Venue
Human Reproduction Update
Published
2011-11-22
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
211-227
ISSN
  • 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2369
OpenAlex
W2097704289
Cited by
52
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Human Reproduction Update (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Radboud Universiteit
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
infertility, online support groups, self-help intervention, online counseling, educational intervention, mental health promotion, fertility care, MRC framework
MeSH terms
Counseling, Health Promotion, Humans, Infertility, Mental Health, Self-Help Groups, Reproductive Medicine, Internet

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