ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2011
Willingness to pay and conjoint analysis to determine women's preferences for ovarian stimulating hormones in the treatment of infertility in Spain.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review.Human reproduction update · 2024Pooled it
- What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Pooled it
- Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Microarray patches as a potential alternative to injectable fertility medications: a qualitative study of patients' and healthcare professionals' perceptions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Corifollitropin alfa versus daily recombinant FSH for ovarian stimulation in women of advanced maternal age: a cost-minimization analysis in an out-of-pocket setting.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Applying a simplified economic evaluation approach to evaluate infertility treatments in clinical practice.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- The general public's attitude towards accepting payment for kidney donation.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Out-of-pocket payment and patients' treatment choice for assisted reproductive technology by household income: a conjoint analysis using an online social research panel in Japan.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Cost-benefit analysis of kidney transplant in patients with chronic kidney disease: a case study in Iran.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022Article
- How Do People with Experience of Infertility Value Different Aspects of Assistive Reproductive Therapy? Results from a Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2022Article
- Indicators of infertility and fertility care: a systematic scoping review.Human reproduction open · 2022Article
- And When I Die: Theory of Planned Behavior as Applied to Sperm Cryopreservation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Health shock and preference instability: assessing health-state dependency of willingness-to-pay for corrective eyeglasses.Health economics review · 2019Article
- Analysis of patient and nurse preferences for self-administered FSH injection devices in select European markets.International journal of women's health · 2019Article
- Comparative economic study of the use of corifollitropin alfa and daily rFSH for controlled ovarian stimulation in older patients: Cost-minimization analysis based on the PURSUE study.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2018Article
- Article
- Projecting the potential impact of the Cap-Score™ on clinical pregnancy, live births, and medical costs in couples with unexplained infertility.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2018Article
- Women's perspectives on ovulation induction with or without IUI as treatment for normogonadotrophic anovulation: a discrete choice experiment.Human reproduction open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite many advances in assisted reproductive techniques (ART), little is known about preferences for technological developments of women undergoing fertility treatments. The aims of this study were to investigate the preferences of infertile women undergoing ART for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatments; to determine the utility values ascribed to different attributes of COS treatments; and to estimate women's willingness to pay (WTP) for COS.
methodsA representative sample of ambulatory patients ready to receive, or receiving, COS therapies for infertility were recruited from seven specialized private centres in six autonomous communities in Spain. Descriptive, inferential and conjoint analyses (CA) were used to elicit preferences and WTP. Attributes and levels of COS treatments were identified by literature review and two focus groups with experts and patients. WTP valuations were derived by a combination of double-bounded (closed-ended) and open questions and contingent ranking methods.
resultsIn total, 160 patients [mean (standard deviation; SD) age: 35.8 (4.2) years] were interviewed. Over half of the participants (55.0%) had a high level of education (university degree), most (78.8%) were married and half (50.0%) had an estimated net income of >€1502 per month and had paid a mean (SD) €1194.17 (€778.29) for their most recent hormonal treatment. The most frequent causes of infertility were related to sperm abnormalities (50.3%). In 30.6% of cases, there were two causes of infertility. The maximum WTP for COS treatment was €800 (median) per cycle; 35.5% were willing to pay an additional €101-€300 for a 1-2% effectiveness gain in the treatment. Utility values (CA) showed that effectiveness was the most valued attribute (39.82), followed by costs (18.74), safety (17.75) and information sharing with physicians (14.93).
conclusionsWTP for COS therapies exceeds current cost. Additional WTP exists for 1-2% effectiveness improvement. Effectiveness and costs were the most important determinants of preferences, followed by safety and information sharing with physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.