Abstract
Objectives: The Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test has been promoted as a way to inform women about their future fertility. However, data consistently shows the test is a poor predictor of natural fertility potential for an individual woman. As fertility centre websites are often a primary source of information for reproductive information, it is essential the information provided is accurate and reflects the available evidence. We aimed to systematically record and categorise information about the AMH test found on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites.
Design: Content analysis of online written information about the AMH test on fertility clinic websites.
Setting: Accredited Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites
Methods: Data were extracted between April and June 2020. Any webpage that mentioned the AMH test, including blogs specifically about the AMH test posted since 2015, were analysed and the content categorised.
Results: Of the 39 active accredited fertility clinics’ websites, 25 included information about the AMH test. The amount of information varied widely, and embodied four overarching categories; 1)the utility of the AMH test, 2) who the test is suitable for, 3) possible actions in response to the test,
and 4) caveats and limitations of the test. Eight specific statements about the utility of the test were identified, many of which are not evidence-based. Whilst some websites were transparent regarding the test’s limitations, others mentioned no caveats or included persuasive statements actively promoting the test as empowering for a range of women in different circumstances.
Conclusions: Several websites had statements about the utility of the AMH test that are not supported by the evidence. This highlights the need for higher standards for information provided on fertility clinic websites to prevent women being misled to believe the test can reliably predict their fertility
Design: Content analysis of online written information about the AMH test on fertility clinic websites.
Setting: Accredited Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites
Methods: Data were extracted between April and June 2020. Any webpage that mentioned the AMH test, including blogs specifically about the AMH test posted since 2015, were analysed and the content categorised.
Results: Of the 39 active accredited fertility clinics’ websites, 25 included information about the AMH test. The amount of information varied widely, and embodied four overarching categories; 1)the utility of the AMH test, 2) who the test is suitable for, 3) possible actions in response to the test,
and 4) caveats and limitations of the test. Eight specific statements about the utility of the test were identified, many of which are not evidence-based. Whilst some websites were transparent regarding the test’s limitations, others mentioned no caveats or included persuasive statements actively promoting the test as empowering for a range of women in different circumstances.
Conclusions: Several websites had statements about the utility of the AMH test that are not supported by the evidence. This highlights the need for higher standards for information provided on fertility clinic websites to prevent women being misled to believe the test can reliably predict their fertility
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e046927 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | BMJ Open |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 7 |
| Early online date | 7 Jul 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 7 Jul 2021 |