Remaking the Human Body

• Research type

  Research Study

• Full title

  Remaking the Human Body: Biomedical Imaging Technologies, Professional and Lay Visions

• IRAS ID

  225739

• Contact name

  Josie Hamper

• Contact email

  j.a.hamper@qmul.ac.uk

• Sponsor organisation

  Queen Mary, University of London

• Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

  17/EM/0218 ,

• Duration of Study in the UK

  5 years, 1 months, 30 days

• Research summary

  The development and diffusion of biomedical imaging technologies allows medical professionals to explore the human body in new ways. Images of bodies and internal organs and cells are common in medical practice. Biomedical staff need to develop new skills to interpret images of the inner body. Images are used in the communication with patients and then travel throughout the social world contributing to a changing understanding of what the body is and how it works. However, the relations between new visual tools, professional and lay visions remains underexplored.
  The project investigates the case of IVF imaging technologies, which allows patients to see embryos at a very early stage. The aim of this research project is to explore the role of biomedical imaging by looking at the artefacts that produce it, at how it is used in medical practice, and how it is received by patients and caregivers who are involved. In particular, the project will explore how these images are involved in changing conceptions of the human body.
  Lay summary of study results: The research explored the introduction of new biomedical imaging technologies (such as time-lapse imaging and incubation) and other interventions in in vitro fertilisation (IVF), focusing on their impact on patients and the healthcare system. One key area examined the use of embryo imaging technologies, which allow professional to produce video of embryos in the lab and patients to view these videos during treatment. While these videos can enhance emotional connection, they may also increase stress and unrealistic expectations, especially when patient access them without professional support. Recommendations for clinics on best practice to share these videos and a video animation to support patients can be accessed here: https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclick.pstmrk.it%2F3ts%2Fwww.qmul.ac.uk%252Fremaking-fertility%252Fresources-for-clinics%252F.%2FNBTI%2FaTW8AQ%2FAQ%2F8cc21dfd-3800-4b35-913b-274b6cfdfc6e%2F1%2FJ06OWQtCo_&data=05%7C02%7Cleicestercentral.rec%40hra.nhs.uk%7Ca39b383f61dc463f374b08dd6abce389%7C8e1f0acad87d4f20939e36243d574267%7C0%7C0%7C638784081853074372%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hioV458r%2BUYyeC%2F8m3W8%2BjPwuRr%2B5BNyLjZweM4nISA%3D&reserved=0
  The study also investigated the evidence supporting IVF “add-ons,” such as time-lapse imaging and other interventions, which are often marketed as improving success rates despite limited scientific backing. Researchers highlighted the challenges faced by fertility professionals in balancing commercial pressures with evidence-based medicine, where reliable data is crucial but difficult to obtain due to the unique nature of fertility care.
  Patient experiences were a central focus. The research revealed that decisions about add-ons are often shaped by hope and emotional vulnerability, with patients navigating complex medical information alongside financial and emotional costs. The study also explored how the mixed public and private nature of fertility services in the UK influences patient choices, exposing inequalities and increasing the consumerisation of healthcare.
  This work underscores the need for clearer communication about the benefits and risks of fertility treatments and calls for stronger safeguards to protect patients in a commercialised and emotionally charged environment. The findings aim to inform both patients and professionals, fostering a more ethical and evidence-based approach to fertility care.
  For further information, refer to the research publications on the Remaking the Human Body project blog: https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclick.pstmrk.it%2F3ts%2Fremakingthehumanbody.sbm.qmul.ac.uk%252F.%2FNBTI%2FaTW8AQ%2FAQ%2F8cc21dfd-3800-4b35-913b-274b6cfdfc6e%2F2%2FyKBmTzpv-K&data=05%7C02%7Cleicestercentral.rec%40hra.nhs.uk%7Ca39b383f61dc463f374b08dd6abce389%7C8e1f0acad87d4f20939e36243d574267%7C0%7C0%7C638784081853102992%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MUoYoOKAPtZb4xEOeCrEwGTu5tVJN4zvS9qNdcEctW4%3D&reserved=0
  

• REC name

  East Midlands - Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee

• REC reference

  17/EM/0218

• Date of REC Opinion

  7 Jun 2017

• REC opinion

  Favourable Opinion