Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30682152›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: Public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries.

Bart C J M Fauser, Jacky Boivin, Pedro N Barri, Basil C Tarlatzis, Lone Schmidt, Rachel Levy-Toledano

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. New Frontiers in Reproductive Health: Australians' Support for Uterus Transplantation.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. What Do the General Public Know about Infertility and Its Treatment?European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The social infertility cycle model.Health psychology report · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Rethinking advanced motherhood: a new ethical narrative.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Impact of Stress and Financials on Romanian Infertile Women Accessing Assisted Reproductive Treatment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Bart C J M FauserUniversity of Utrecht and University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jacky BoivinCardiff Fertility Studies Research Group School of Psychology, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Pedro N BarriDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproduction, Hospital Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain.
Basil C TarlatzisSchool of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Lone SchmidtDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rachel Levy-ToledanoTheramex HQ UK Limited, London, United Kingdom.
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRCardiff University · GBHospital Universitario Dexeus · ESUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFertility rates in Europe are among the lowest in the world, which may be attributed to both biological and lifestyle factors. Cost and reimbursement of fertility treatments vary across Europe, although its citizens enjoy wide access to fertility care. Since few regional studies evaluating public support for fertility treatment exist, we conducted the Listening IVF and Fertility in Europe (LIFE) survey to ascertain public perception of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gamete donation as a treatment for infertility among European men and women. METHODS AND

findingsThis survey was distributed via an online questionnaire to 8,682 individuals who were voluntary participants in an online research panel residing in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, or the UK. The survey covered items to determine respondents' beliefs regarding IVF and its success, the need for public funding, the use of IVF among modern families with different lifestyles, and the support for gamete donation. Results were analyzed by age, country of origin, sex, and sexual orientation. A total of 6,110 (70% of total) men and women responded. Among all respondents, 10% had undergone IVF treatment and 48% had considered or would consider IVF in case of infertility. Respondents estimated IVF mean success rate to be 47% and over half of respondents believed that availability of IVF would encourage people to delay conception. Although 93% of respondents believed that IVF treatment should be publicly funded to some extent, a majority believed that secondary infertility or use of fertility treatments allowing to delay parenthood should be financed privately. Survey respondents believed that the mean number of stimulated IVF cycles funded publicly should be limited 2 to 3 (average 2.4). 79% of respondents were willing to pay for IVF if needed with a mean amount of 5,400 € for a child brought to life through IVF. According to respondents, mean minimum and maximum ages for IVF should be 29 and 42 years old, respectively. The current survey showed support for egg and sperm donation (78%), for IVF in single women (61%) and for same-sex female couples (64%). When analyzing the results per group (i.e., sex, age, sexual orientation, and countries), youngest age groups, homosexuals, bisexuals, German respondents, and men had similar overall positive attitudes and beliefs toward IVF and opinions on public funding. Perceived limits to availability were stronger in women.

conclusionOverall, the survey results demonstrate a positive attitude among respondents in an online panel toward IVF, gamete donation, and support for public funding for fertility treatment. These findings could potentially drive discussions between patients and prescribers to explore IVF treatment and among legislators and payers to support public funding for these procedures.

Indexed as

AttitudeCultureReproductive Techniques, AssistedAdolescentAdultAge FactorsEuropeFemaleHumansMaleSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID30682152
PMCPMC6347360
OpenAlexW2914699731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.