Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jan 25;14(1):e0211150.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211150. eCollection 2019.

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

Bart C J M Fauser  1 , Jacky Boivin  2 , Pedro N Barri  3 , Basil C Tarlatzis  4 , Lone Schmidt  5 , Rachel Levy-Toledano  6
Affiliations

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

Bart C J M Fauser et al. PLoS One. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

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.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Degree of acceptance of IVF (A) among all respondents; (B) by sex; (C) by country; (D) by age.
Respondents could select more than 1 response. Please refer to the questionnaire for full response text.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Opinions regarding the number of publicly funded IVF cycles.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Opinions regarding the funding source for IVF.
See questionnaire for full response text.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Acceptable cost for IVF (in €).
Mean acceptable cost: 5,400 €.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Minimum and maximum acceptable age ranges for IVF.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1520–4. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adamson GD, Tabangin M, Macaluso M, de Mouzon J. The number of babies born globally after treatment with the assisted reproductive technologies (ART) [abstract]. 2013;100(suppl 1)(3):S42.
    1. Dyer S, Chambers GM, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: Assisted Reproductive Technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(7):1588–609. 10.1093/humrep/dew082 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aarts JW, van den Haak P, Nelen WL, Tuil WS, Faber MJ, Kremer JA. Patient-focused internet interventions in reproductive medicine: a scoping review. Hum Reprod. 2012;18(2):211–27. - PubMed
    1. Adashi EY, Cohen J, Hamberger L, Jones HW Jr., de Kretser DM, Lunenfeld B, et al. Public perception on infertility and its treatment: an international survey. The Bertarelli Foundation Scientific Board. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(2):330–4. - PubMed

Publication types