30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: Public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Fertility rates in Europe are among the lowest in the world, which may be attributed to both biological and lifestyle factors. Cost and reimbursement of fertility treatments vary across Europe, although its citizens enjoy wide access to fertility care. Since few regional studies evaluating public support for fertility treatment exist, we conducted the Listening IVF and Fertility in Europe (LIFE) survey to ascertain public perception of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gamete donation as a treatment for infertility among European men and women.

          Methods and findings

          This survey was distributed via an online questionnaire to 8,682 individuals who were voluntary participants in an online research panel residing in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, or the UK. The survey covered items to determine respondents’ beliefs regarding IVF and its success, the need for public funding, the use of IVF among modern families with different lifestyles, and the support for gamete donation. Results were analyzed by age, country of origin, sex, and sexual orientation. A total of 6,110 (70% of total) men and women responded. Among all respondents, 10% had undergone IVF treatment and 48% had considered or would consider IVF in case of infertility. Respondents estimated IVF mean success rate to be 47% and over half of respondents believed that availability of IVF would encourage people to delay conception. Although 93% of respondents believed that IVF treatment should be publicly funded to some extent, a majority believed that secondary infertility or use of fertility treatments allowing to delay parenthood should be financed privately. Survey respondents believed that the mean number of stimulated IVF cycles funded publicly should be limited 2 to 3 (average 2.4). 79% of respondents were willing to pay for IVF if needed with a mean amount of 5,400 € for a child brought to life through IVF. According to respondents, mean minimum and maximum ages for IVF should be 29 and 42 years old, respectively. The current survey showed support for egg and sperm donation (78%), for IVF in single women (61%) and for same-sex female couples (64%). When analyzing the results per group (i.e., sex, age, sexual orientation, and countries), youngest age groups, homosexuals, bisexuals, German respondents, and men had similar overall positive attitudes and beliefs toward IVF and opinions on public funding. Perceived limits to availability were stronger in women.

          Conclusion

          Overall, the survey results demonstrate a positive attitude among respondents in an online panel toward IVF, gamete donation, and support for public funding for fertility treatment. These findings could potentially drive discussions between patients and prescribers to explore IVF treatment and among legislators and payers to support public funding for these procedures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: Assisted Reproductive Technology 2008, 2009 and 2010.

          What were utilization, outcomes and practices in assisted reproductive technology (ART) globally in 2008, 2009 and 2010?
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Fertility knowledge and beliefs about fertility treatment: findings from the International Fertility Decision-making Study.

            How good is fertility knowledge and what are treatment beliefs in an international sample of men and women currently trying to conceive?
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Fertility awareness and parenting attitudes among American male and female undergraduate university students.

              In the USA, the postponement of childbearing reflects contemporary social norms of delaying marriage, pursing educational goals and securing economic stability prior to attempting conception. Although university students are more likely to delay childbearing, it is unclear to what extent they are aware of age-related fertility decline. The current study is the first of its kind to assess fertility awareness and parenting attitudes of American undergraduate university students. Two-hundred forty-six randomly selected undergraduate university students (138 females and 108 males) completed an online self-report survey adapted from the Swedish Fertility Awareness Questionnaire. Students were evenly distributed between the freshman, sophomore, junior and senior classes with a mean age of 20.4 years. Participants wanted to have their first and last child within the window of a woman's fertility. However, participants demonstrated a lack of fertility awareness by vastly overestimating the age at which women experience declines in fertility, the likelihood of pregnancy following unprotected intercourse and the chances that IVF treatments would be successful in the case of infertility. Nearly 9 in 10 participants want to have children in the future and viewed parenthood as a highly important aspect of their future lives. Delaying childbearing based on incorrect perceptions of female fertility could lead to involuntary childlessness. Education regarding fertility issues is necessary to help men and women make informed reproductive decisions that are based on accurate information rather than incorrect perceptions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                25 January 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 1
                : e0211150
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of Utrecht and University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [2 ] Cardiff Fertility Studies Research Group School of Psychology, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproduction, Hospital Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ] School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
                [5 ] Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [6 ] Theramex HQ UK Limited, London, United Kingdom
                China University of Science and Technology, CHINA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: We have the following interests. This study was sponsored and funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe, Women’s Health Division (now Theramex HQ UK Limited). The study was designed by academic investigators and by representatives of the sponsor, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe. Statistical analysis was completed by Renee Wurth, PhD. Bart CJM Fauser: Over the last 5 years has received fees or grant support from the following organizations: Actavis/Watson/Uteron, Controversies in Obstetrics & Gynecology (COGI), Dutch Heart Foundation, Dutch Medical Research Council (ZonMW), Euroscreen/Ogeda, Ferring, London Womens Clinic (LWC), Merck Serono (GFI grant), Myovant, Netherland Genomic Initiative (NGI), OvaScience, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem/Gedeon Richter/Finox, Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO), Roche, Teva/Theramex, and World Health Organization (WHO). Jacky Boivin: Over the last 5 years has received (or her University has received for her projects) fees or grant support from the following organizations: Merck Norway (Merck AB NUF), Ferring International Center S.A., Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, Merck KGaA, Actavis Generics, IBSA Institut Biochimique, World Health Organization, Daiwai Foundation, European Society for Human Reproduction & Embryology. Pedro Barri: Nothing to disclose. Basil Tarlatzis: Over the last 5 years has received grants/research support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Angelini; has received honoraria or consultation fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, IBSA, Ferring; has participated in companysponsored speaker’s bureaus for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, IBSA; has received travel grants from Ferring and IBSA. Lone Schmidt: Over the last 5 years has received funding from the Danish Health Foundation; the Danish Research Council; The Faculty of Health Sciences, Copenhagen; Teva/Theramex. Rachel Levy-Toledano: Was a consultant for Teva Europe Medical Affairs during the conduct of the survey and was a consultant for Theramex HQ UK Limited, London at the time the manuscript was written. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in the guide for authors.

                Article
                PONE-D-18-25249
                10.1371/journal.pone.0211150
                6347360
                30682152
                61343014-0cb2-4b00-9e63-4d659fc80b15
                © 2019 Fauser et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 30 August 2018
                : 8 January 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, Pages: 15
                Funding
                Funded by: Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe, Women’s Health Division (now Theramex HQ UK Limited)
                This study was sponsored and funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe, Women’s Health Division (now Theramex HQ UK Limited). The study was designed by academic investigators and by representatives of the sponsor, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe. Statistical analysis was completed by Renee Wurth, PhD and all authors. All authors contributed to the interpretation of data and writing or critically reviewing and revising the manuscript. All authors had access to the data, take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis and take final responsibility to submit for publication. Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe and Theramex HQ UK Limited provided support in the form of honoraria for author RLT, but did not have any additional role in the, data collection, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. All academic authors did not receive any financial compensation for their efforts in relation to this publication. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Questionnaires
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Cell Biology
                Cellular Types
                Animal Cells
                Germ Cells
                Sperm
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Sexuality Groupings
                Homosexuals
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Assisted Reproductive Technology
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Europe
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Urology
                Infertility
                Female Infertility
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are presented within the paper. The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article was derived from the CENSUSWIDE ( http://www.censuswide.com/). The authors do not have permission to give public access to these databases; however, researchers may request access for their own purposes. The survey was designed and implemented in accordance with the ESOMAR (formerly The European Society for Opinion and Market Research) code and Market Research Society (MRS) Code of Conduct.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article