Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29444788›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Assessment of the societal and individual preferences for fertility treatment in Australia: study protocol for stated preference discrete choice experiments.

Willings Botha, Natasha Donnolley, Marian Shanahan, Georgina M Chambers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. DoesFrontiers in global women's health · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Willings BothaThe National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales-Randwick Campus, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7375-7229
Natasha DonnolleyThe National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales-Randwick Campus, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Marian ShanahanNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales-Randwick Campus, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Georgina M ChambersThe National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, University of New South Wales-Randwick Campus, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn Australia, societal and individual preferences for funding fertility treatment remain largely unknown. This has resulted in a lack of evidence about willingness to pay (WTP) for fertility treatment by either the general population (the funders) or infertile individuals (who directly benefit). Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment (SPDCE) approach has been suggested as a more appropriate method to inform economic evaluations of fertility treatment. We outline the protocol for an ongoing study which aims to assess fertility treatment preferences of both the general population and infertile individuals, and indirectly estimate their WTP for fertility treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two separate but related SPDCEs will be conducted for two population samples-the general population and infertile individuals-to elicit preferences for fertility treatment to indirectly estimate WTP. We describe the qualitative work to be undertaken to design the SPDCEs. We will use D-efficient fractional experimental designs informed by prior coefficients from the pilot surveys. The mode of administration for the SPDCE is also discussed. The final results will be analysed using mixed logit or latent class model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is being funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant AP1104543 and has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC 17255) and a fertility clinic's ethics committee. Findings of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at various conferences. A lay summary of the results will be made publicly available on the University of New South Wales National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit website. Our results will contribute to the development of an evidence-based policy framework for the provision of cost-effective and patient-centred fertility treatment in Australia.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthFertilityPatient PreferenceAdolescentAdultAustraliaChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansInfertilityMiddle AgedPregnancyReproductive Health ServicesResearch DesignYoung Adultinfertilityreproductive medicinestated preference discrete choice experimentwillingness to pay

Identifiers

PMID29444788
PMCPMC5829889
OpenAlexW2792087046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.