Is the public supportive and willing to pay for a national assistive reproductive therapies programme? Results from a multicountry survey

Unmet Parenthood Goals, Health-Related Quality of Life and Apparent Irrationality: Understanding the Value of Treatments for Infertility

An increasing number of prospective parents are experiencing infertility along with associated negative impacts on mental health and life satisfaction that can extend across a network of individuals and family members. Assistive reproductive technologies (ART) can help prospective parents achieve their parenthood goals but, like any health technology, they must demonstrate acceptable 'value for money' to qualify for public funding. We argue that current approaches to understanding the value of ART, including quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains based on changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and, more often, cost per live birth, are too narrow to capture the full impact of unmet parenthood goals and ART. We see a fundamental disconnect between measures of HRQOL and broader measures of wellbeing associated with met and unmet parenthood goals. We also suggest that simple concepts such as 'patient' and 'carer' are of limited applicability in the context of ART, where 'spillovers' extend across a wide network of individuals, and the person receiving treatment is often not the infertile individual. Consideration of individual and societal wellbeing beyond HRQOL is necessary to understand the full range of negative impacts associated with unmet parenthood goals and the corresponding positive impacts of successful ART. We suggest moving towards a wellbeing perspective on value to achieve a fuller understanding of value and promote cross-sector allocative efficiency.

How Do People with Experience of Infertility Value Different Aspects of Assistive Reproductive Therapy? Results from a Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment

Objectives

Assistive reproductive therapies can help those who have difficulty conceiving but different forms of assistive reproductive therapies are associated with different treatment characteristics. We undertook a large, multinational discrete choice experiment to understand patient preferences for assistive reproductive therapies.

Methods

We administered an online discrete choice experiment with persons who had experience with subfertility or assistive reproductive therapies in the USA, UK, the Nordic region (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland), Spain, and China. Attributes encouraged trade-offs between effectiveness, risk of adverse effects, treatment (dis)comfort, (in)convenience, cost per cycle and shared decision making. We used multinomial logit and mixed-logit models to estimate preferences and attribute importance by country/region, and estimated willingness to pay for changes in attribute levels.

Results

A total of 7565 respondents participated. Mixed logit had a better fit than multinomial logit across all samples. Preferences moved in expected directions across all samples, but the relative importance of attributes differed between countries. Willingness to pay was greatest for improvements in effectiveness and a greater degree of shared decision making, and we observe a substantial ‘option value’ independent of treatment characteristics. Unexpectedly, preferences over cost were insignificant in the Chinese sample, limiting the use of willingness to pay in this sample.

Conclusions

Respondents balanced concerns for effectiveness with other considerations, including the cost and (dis)comfort of treatment, and the degree of shared decision making, but there is also substantial option value independent of treatment characteristics, demonstrating value of assistive reproductive therapies to individuals with experience of subfertility. We hypothesise that price insensitivity in the Chinese sample may reflect a degree of social desirability bias.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00563-7.