Observational studyPloS one2026
Out-of-pocket expenditure experienced by couples seeking In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) services at tertiary care facilities in India.
Observational study in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOut-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) incurred by infertile couples seeking In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment in selected public and private hospitals in India.
designCross-sectional observational study.
settingTwo private and three public tertiary care hospitals across varied geographical regions of India that provide IVF services.
participantsA total of 148 couples undergoing IVF were enrolled via semi-purposive consecutive sampling over a six-month period after providing informed written consent. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using validated structured tool, direct health costs (procedures, drugs, diagnostics), non-medical costs (travel, food, lodging), and indirect costs (loss of wages) were explored. Catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and predictors of OOPE were also assessed.
resultsThe mean OOPE per IVF cycle was ₹1,10,104 (±₹75,503) [~USD 1,321(±906)] in public hospitals and ₹2,30,668 (±₹1,09,556) [~USD 2,768 (±1315)] in private hospitals. The majority of expenses were on drugs and diagnostics. Approximately 30% of couples experienced CHE, with drug costs contributing 55% of total expenditure. Only 5% had insurance coverage, with an average cover of ₹1,00,625 (±35,500) [~USD 1,208 (± 426)]. Over half (58%) relied on external financial support, mostly from friends and family.Couples without insurance had significantly higher OOPE than those with coverage (p=0.029). Higher household income was also linked to increased OOPE (p=0.001). Couples undergoing treatment at private facilities had 7.7 (CI: 2.5-23.15) times higher odds of experiencing CHE compared to public facilities. Lack of insurance coverage was associated with higher odds of CHE, although not significant.
conclusionsCouples undergoing IVF in public and private hospitals face substantial financial burdens, often resulting in CHE. This justifies the need to improve access to comprehensive infertility services, including IVF, through public health facilities to meet the demand for this emerging health problem.
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.