Attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding the anti-müllerian hormone test among general practitioners and reproductive specialists: A cross-sectional study

Tessa Copp; Rachel Thompson; Karin Hammarberg; Sarah Lensen; Lidiya Augustine; Jenny Doust; Michelle Peate; Erin Cvejic; Ben W Mol; Devora Lieberman; Kirsten J McCaffery

doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17741

Attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding the anti-müllerian hormone test among general practitioners and reproductive specialists: A cross-sectional study

BJOG. 2024 Jan 9. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17741. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
² Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
³ School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
⁴ Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
⁵ Australian Women and Girls' Health Research Centre, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
⁶ Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
⁷ Aberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
⁸ City Fertility Centre Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

PMID: 38196321
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17741

Abstract

Objective: To describe clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) test.

Design: Cross-sectional nationwide survey.

Setting: Australia.

Population or sample: A total of 362 general practitioners (GPs), gynaecologists and reproductive specialists.

Methods: Clinicians were recruited through relevant professional organisations, with data collected from May 2021 to April 2022.

Main outcome measures: Clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the AMH test, measured using multiple choice, Likert scales and open-ended items.

Results: Fifteen percent of GPs (n = 27) and 40% of gynaecologists and other specialists (n = 73) order at least one AMH test per month. Specialists reported raising the idea of testing most of the time, whereas GPs reported that patient request was more common. Half of clinicians lacked confidence interpreting (n = 182, 51%) and explaining (n = 173, 48%) an AMH result to their patients. Five percent (n = 19) believed the test was moderately/very useful in predicting natural conception/birth and 22% (n = 82) believed the same for predicting premature menopause, despite evidence that the test cannot reliably predict either. Forty percent (n = 144) had previously ordered the test to help with reproductive planning and 21% (n = 75) to provide reassurance about fertility.

Conclusions: Clinicians reported use of AMH testing in clinical circumstances not supported by the evidence. With the proliferation of direct-to-consumer testing, efforts to support clinicians in the judicious use of testing and effectively navigating patient requests are needed.

Keywords: anti-müllerian hormone; fertility; menopause; reproductive planning.

Abstract

Grants and funding