ArticleCureus2024
Japanese Health Insurance Coverage of Fertility Treatment in 2022: Does Coverage Change Patient Perspectives?
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical evidence of acupuncture for infertile women with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Toward global reproductive justice: a universal framework for evaluating equity and autonomy in in-vitro fertilization policies.Reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the change in the patient's background and attitude toward infertility treatment both before and after the initiation of insurance coverage and to explore future issues from the patients' perspectives. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in a fertility clinic in Japan from February to June 2022. An original questionnaire was given for two groups of new patients at a fertility clinic on their first visit: before fertility treatment insurance coverage started (Before-coverage) and after fertility treatment insurance coverage started (After-coverage).
resultsThe study included 75 patients (Before-coverage = 25; After-coverage = 50). Multivariate analysis revealed increases among patients who consider infertility a "disease" rather than a "condition" (odds ratio (OR): 5.03, p < 0.05), those preferring in vitro fertilization (IVF) as an initial treatment (OR: 2.54, p = 0.03), and those who recommend oocyte freezing for one's child (OR: 3.88, p = 0.04), with statistical significance in the After-coverage group compared with the Before-coverage group. However, the anticipated financial burden did not change significantly (e.g., cost per IVF, cost to achieve pregnancy).
conclusionsMore patients had an impression of infertility as a "disease" and preferred IVF as the first treatment option after coverage than before coverage. Furthermore, many patients wanted to recommend oocyte freezing for their children despite the lack of insurance coverage. However, patients' anticipated economic burden for treatment was not different between both groups. The economic burden anticipated by patients remained unchanged, revealing the challenge of disseminating information to patients in the future.
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.