Is the public supportive and willing to pay for a national assistive reproductive therapies programme? Results from a multicountry survey.
health economics
health policy
subfertility
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 03 2021
10 03 2021
Historique:
entrez:
11
3
2021
pubmed:
12
3
2021
medline:
20
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To understand attitudes towards infertility and willingness to pay (WTP) towards a publicly funded national assistive reproductive therapies (ART) programme. Attitudes survey with dichotomous and open-ended WTP questions. Online survey administered in the USA, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and China. 7945 respondents, analysed by country. Nordic respondents were pooled into a regionally representative sample. Primary outcome measures were proportion of sample agreeing with different infertility-related and ART-related value statements and supporting a monthly contribution to fund a national ART programme, expressed in local currency. Secondary outcome measure was maximum WTP. Across the nationally representative samples, 75.5% of all respondents agreed with infertility as a medical condition and 82.3% and 83.7% with ART eligibility for anyone who has difficulty having a baby or a medical problem preventing them from having a baby, respectively. 56.4% of respondents supported a defined monthly contribution and 73.9% supported at least some additional contribution to fund a national ART programme. Overall, converting to euros, median maximum WTP was €3.00 and mean was €15.47 (95% CI 14.23 to 16.72) per month. Maximum WTP was highest in China and the USA and lowest in the European samples. This large, multicountry survey extends our understanding of public attitudes towards infertility and fertility treatment beyond Europe. It finds evidence that a majority of the public in all sampled countries/regions views infertility as a treatable medical condition and supports the idea that all infertile individuals should have access to treatments that improve the chance of conception. There was also strong agreement with the idea that the desire for children is a basic human need. WTP questions showed that a majority of respondents supported a monthly contribution to fund a national ART programme, although there is some evidence of an acquiescence bias that may overstate support among specific samples.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33692187
pii: bmjopen-2020-044986
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044986
pmc: PMC7949370
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e044986Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: CSk, ER and EF report grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study. JAW reports personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study. MM reports other from Ferring Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study; other from Ferring Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. CSa reports personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study.
Références
Hum Reprod. 2007 Jun;22(6):1506-12
pubmed: 17376819
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 25;14(1):e0211150
pubmed: 30682152
Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18 Suppl 2:11-4
pubmed: 19406025
Nat Rev Urol. 2017 Feb;14(2):120-130
pubmed: 28050014
Health Econ. 2005 Mar;14(3):307-22
pubmed: 15386664
Popul Stud (Camb). 1996 Nov;50(3):361-87
pubmed: 11618374
J Appl Psychol. 2003 Oct;88(5):879-903
pubmed: 14516251
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015 Sep 15;3(3):341-51
pubmed: 26374796
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Feb 06;2020(1):hoz044
pubmed: 32042927
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014 Sep 26;8:1337-46
pubmed: 25328385
Interact J Med Res. 2020 Feb 8;9(1):e13355
pubmed: 32027310
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jul;26(7):1790-8
pubmed: 21558333
Hum Reprod. 2010 May;25(5):1225-33
pubmed: 20228390
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Feb;17(1):103-110
pubmed: 30315488