Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility.
Fertility problems
Infertility
Quality of life
Subfertility
Time trade-off
Utility
Journal
Reproductive health
ISSN: 1742-4755
Titre abrégé: Reprod Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101224380
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 May 2019
03 May 2019
Historique:
received:
05
07
2018
accepted:
04
04
2019
entrez:
5
5
2019
pubmed:
6
5
2019
medline:
5
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health state utility values allow for comparison of treatments across different diseases. Utility values for fertility-impaired health states are currently unavailable. Such values are necessary in order to determine the relative costs-effectiveness of fertility treatments. This study aimed to determine utility weights for infertile and subfertile health states. In addition, it explored the Dutch general population's opinions regarding the inclusion of infertility treatments in the Dutch health insurers' basic benefit package. An online questionnaire was designed to determine the health-related quality of life values of six fertility-impaired health states. The study population consisted of a representative sample of the Dutch adult population. Respondents were asked to evaluate the health states through direct health valuation methods, i.e. the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Time Trade-Off (TTO) method. In addition, respondents were asked about their opinions regarding reimbursement of fertility-related treatments. The respondents' (n = 767) VAS scores ranged from 0.640 to 0.796. TTO utility values ranged from 0.792 to 0.868. Primary infertility and subfertility was valued lower than secondary infertility and subfertility. In total, 92% of the respondents stated that fertility treatments should be fully or partially reimbursed by the health insurance basic benefit package. Having fertility problems results in substantial disutilities according to the viewpoint of the Dutch general population. The results make it possible to compare the value for money of infertility treatment to that of treatments in other disease areas. There is strong support among the general population for reimbursing fertility treatments through the Dutch basic benefit package.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Health state utility values allow for comparison of treatments across different diseases. Utility values for fertility-impaired health states are currently unavailable. Such values are necessary in order to determine the relative costs-effectiveness of fertility treatments.
METHODS
METHODS
This study aimed to determine utility weights for infertile and subfertile health states. In addition, it explored the Dutch general population's opinions regarding the inclusion of infertility treatments in the Dutch health insurers' basic benefit package. An online questionnaire was designed to determine the health-related quality of life values of six fertility-impaired health states. The study population consisted of a representative sample of the Dutch adult population. Respondents were asked to evaluate the health states through direct health valuation methods, i.e. the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Time Trade-Off (TTO) method. In addition, respondents were asked about their opinions regarding reimbursement of fertility-related treatments.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The respondents' (n = 767) VAS scores ranged from 0.640 to 0.796. TTO utility values ranged from 0.792 to 0.868. Primary infertility and subfertility was valued lower than secondary infertility and subfertility. In total, 92% of the respondents stated that fertility treatments should be fully or partially reimbursed by the health insurance basic benefit package.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Having fertility problems results in substantial disutilities according to the viewpoint of the Dutch general population. The results make it possible to compare the value for money of infertility treatment to that of treatments in other disease areas. There is strong support among the general population for reimbursing fertility treatments through the Dutch basic benefit package.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31053144
doi: 10.1186/s12978-019-0706-9
pii: 10.1186/s12978-019-0706-9
pmc: PMC6499998
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47Références
Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Feb;17(2):151-65
pubmed: 10947338
Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):447-56
pubmed: 12112493
Lancet. 2006 Feb 4;367(9508):379-80
pubmed: 16458748
Med Decis Making. 2010 Jan-Feb;30(1):58-67
pubmed: 18556637
Gynecol Oncol. 2009 May;113(2):216-20
pubmed: 19217148
Value Health. 2010 Dec;13(8):879-84
pubmed: 20659269
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Dec 1;88(12):881-2
pubmed: 21124709
Patient. 2011;4(4):247-57
pubmed: 21995830
PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356
pubmed: 23271957
Health Econ. 2014 Apr;23(4):410-25
pubmed: 23564665
Neurol Sci. 2015 Feb;36(2):197-202
pubmed: 25108469
Hum Reprod. 2015 Oct;30(10):2243-8
pubmed: 26141712
Med Decis Making. 2016 Feb;36(2):187-98
pubmed: 26552410
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):343-52
pubmed: 27325326
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Mar;19(2):277-291
pubmed: 28275878
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018 Dec;23(6):441-450
pubmed: 30499729