Search results

AbstractAt present, there is no standardised protocol for assisted hatching (AH) and the field is beset with contradictory data. We hypothesised that such contradiction may be related to inconsistencies in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the application, preferences, and variations of AH in current clinical practice prior to embryo transfer (AHpET) and biopsy (AHpBP). An online voluntary survey, consisted of 25 questions regarding different aspects of AH, was circulated amongst different fertility centres via newsletters between October 2019 and March 2020. One-hundred twenty-nine different fertility centres participated in the survey. AHpBP was widely used (90.6% [48/53]) amongst these centres, especially for trophectoderm biopsy (92.2% [47/51]). In contrast, only 64.6% (73/113) of centres administrated AHpET; the application of AHpET was even lower in UK-based centres (36.6% [15/41]). Although laser pulses have become the predominant technique for AH, significant variation existed in the precise strategy. Zona pellucida (ZP) drilling was the main method for AHpBP, whilst both ZP drilling and ZP thinning were applied equally for AHpET. Furthermore, the ZP manipulation varied widely with regards to the size of the ZP opening and the extension of ZP thinning. This is the first representative survey relating to the current practice of AH. Laser-assisted AH is used extensively, especially for AHpBP. However, there is significant disparity in clinical practice across different centres. Future research should aim to create a standardised protocol for AH to help reduce the evident variation in clinical practice and investigate the true value of AH.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has been widely rolled out globally in the general populations. However, specific data on vaccination confidence, willingness or coverage among health care workers (HCWs) has been less reported. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to specify the basic data and patterns of vaccination confidence, willingness and coverage among HCWs nationwide. Results: In total, 2386 out of 2583 (92.4%) participants were enrolled for analysis, and the rates of confidence in vaccine, professional institutes and government were 75.1%, 85.2% and 85.4%, respectively. The overall vaccination coverage rate was 63.6% which was adjusted as 82.8% for participants under current medical conditions or having contraindications. Confidence in vaccine safety was shown to be the most related factor to willingness among doctors, nurses, medical technicians and hospital administrators, while confidence in vaccine effectiveness as well as trust in government played the key role in formulating public health employees' willingness. 130 (7.1% of 1833) participants reporting willingness still not been vaccinated regardless of contraindications. Multivariate analysis among willingness participants showed that males, aged over 30 years, public health employees and higher vaccination confidence had significantly higher vaccination rates with ORs (95% confidence intervals) as 1.64 (1.08–2.49), 3.14 (2.14–4.62), 2.43 (1.46–4.04) or 2.31 (1.24–4.33). Conclusions: HCWs' confidence, willingness and coverage rates to the vaccine were generally at high levels. Heterogeneity among HCWs should be considered for future vaccination promotion strategies. The population's confidence in vaccination is not only the determinant to their willingness, but also guarantees their actual vaccine uptake.