ArticleBMJ open2021
Is the public supportive and willing to pay for a national assistive reproductive therapies programme? Results from a multicountry survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Willingness to pay for assisted reproductive technologies among individuals with infertility in China.Health policy and planning · 2025Article
- Alignment, Anticipation, Adaptation, or Lagging Behind? Age-Based Regulations in Assisted Reproduction and Late Fertility.Population and development review · 2024Article
- Unmet Parenthood Goals, Health-Related Quality of Life and Apparent Irrationality: Understanding the Value of Treatments for Infertility.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo understand attitudes towards infertility and willingness to pay (WTP) towards a publicly funded national assistive reproductive therapies (ART) programme.
designAttitudes survey with dichotomous and open-ended WTP questions.
settingOnline survey administered in the USA, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and China.
participants7945 respondents, analysed by country. Nordic respondents were pooled into a regionally representative sample. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 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.
resultsAcross 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.
conclusionsThis 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.
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.