ArticleHealth policy and planning2025
Willingness to pay for assisted reproductive technologies among individuals with infertility in China.
Article in Health policy and planning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical efficacy of acupuncture for women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the ENRICh scale for Chinese infertile patients: a methodological and cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Infertility, a widely prevalent condition globally, incurs high economic burdens. Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are effective treatments, but public health financing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) rarely covers ART services. In China, where birth rates are declining, willingness to pay (WTP) can inform insurance reimbursement policies by reducing out-of-pocket expenses. However, there is no consensus on WTP thresholds for assessing the cost-effectiveness of fertility treatments in LMICs. This study aimed to assess WTP for ART among individuals with infertility in China. Data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey conducted at five hospitals across different geographical and socioeconomic regions in China. Individuals with infertility were recruited using a quota sampling method. A contingent valuation method was employed, with three hypothetical WTP scenarios developed to present detailed information on the success rates, costs, and the treatment processes of in vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial insemination (AI), and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). A total of 570 individuals with infertility participated in the survey [94.4% female; mean (standard deviation) age: 33.0 (4.7) years]. The sampled respondents were willing to pay renminbi (RMB) 30 163 [$4259, 95% confidence interval (CI): RMB 29 650-30 675] for IVF, RMB 6046 ($854, 95% CI: RMB 5987-6106) for AI, and RMB 47 234 ($6669, 95% CI: RMB 46 435-48 033) for PGT. These WTPs were equivalent to 0.34, 0.07, and 0.53 times the GDP per capita in China, respectively. Older age and male-factor or unexplained infertility were significantly associated with lower WTP (P < .05), while higher education and patient-physician communication about costs were positively associated with WTP (P < .05). These findings suggest that public health insurance schemes should establish appropriate cost-effectiveness thresholds and reimbursement ceilings for ART to improve affordability and access. Incorporating patient-physician communication about cost into clinical practice may facilitate shared decision-making and potentially increase patients' perceived value of ART.
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.