Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36959890›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2023

Financial costs of assisted reproductive technology for patients in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Purity Njagi, Wim Groot, Jelena Arsenijevic, Silke Dyer, Gitau Mburu, James Kiarie

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 140 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
140citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
58.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

140 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 213 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Purity NjagiMaastricht Graduate School of Governance, United Nations University-MERIT, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3157-4413
Wim GrootMaastricht Graduate School of Governance, United Nations University-MERIT, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1035-5916
Jelena ArsenijevicSchool of Governance, Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3405-849X
Silke DyerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3338-4189
Gitau MburuUNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH), World Health Organization, Genève, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5812-0529
United Nations University – Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology · NLUniversity of Cape Town · ZAUtrecht University · NLWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are the direct costs of assisted reproductive technology (ART), and how affordable is it for patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Direct medical costs paid by patients for infertility treatment are significantly higher than annual average income and GDP per capita, pointing to unaffordability and the risk of catastrophic expenditure for those in need. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Infertility treatment is largely inaccessible to many people in LMICs. Our analysis shows that no study in LMICs has previously compared ART medical costs across countries in international dollar terms (US$PPP) or correlated the medical costs with economic indicators, financing mechanisms, and policy regulations. Previous systematic reviews on costs have been limited to high-income countries while those in LMICs have only focussed on descriptive analyses of these costs. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit, PsycINFO, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and grey literature for studies published in all languages from LMICs between 2001 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsThe primary outcome of interest was direct medical costs paid by patients for one ART cycle. To gauge ART affordability, direct medical costs were correlated with the GDP per capita or average income of respective countries. ART regulations and public financing mechanisms were analyzed to provide information on the healthcare contexts in the countries. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study designs. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 4062 studies identified, 26 studies from 17 countries met the inclusion criteria. There were wide disparities across countries in the direct medical costs paid by patients for ART ranging from USD2109 to USD18 592. Relative ART costs and GDP per capita showed a negative correlation, with the costs in Africa and South-East Asia being on average up to 200% of the GDP per capita. Lower relative costs in the Americas and the Eastern Mediterranean regions were associated with the presence of ART regulations and government financing mechanisms. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Several included studies were not primarily designed to examine the cost of ART and thus lacked comprehensive details of the costs. However, a sensitivity analysis showed that exclusion of studies with below the minimum quality score did not change the conclusions on the outcome of interest. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsGovernments in LMICs should devise appropriate ART regulatory policies and implement effective mechanisms for public financing of fertility care to improve equity in access. The findings of this review should inform advocacy for ART regulatory frameworks in LMICs and the integration of infertility treatment as an essential service under universal health coverage. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020199312.

Indexed as

assisted reproductive technologyinfertilityin vitro fertilizationlow- and middle-income countriesmedical costsout of pocketsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36959890
PMCPMC10029849
OpenAlexW4322730891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read53
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.