Weighing Parenthood Wishes: A Conjoint Analysis of Criteria to Prioritize Infertile Couples for Publicly Funded Fertility Treatment.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-18 DOI:10.1177/0272989X251353524
Astrid Van Muylder, Roselinde Kessels, Thomas D'Hooghe, Jeroen Luyten
{"title":"Weighing Parenthood Wishes: A Conjoint Analysis of Criteria to Prioritize Infertile Couples for Publicly Funded Fertility Treatment.","authors":"Astrid Van Muylder, Roselinde Kessels, Thomas D'Hooghe, Jeroen Luyten","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251353524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundParenthood is a key life goal for many, but infertility affects about 1 in 6 globally. While fertility treatments offer solutions, their high costs limit access. Many health systems provide public funding, yet budget constraints prevent fully funded access, often leaving patients with significant out-of-pocket costs. Policy makers face the challenge of prioritizing individuals for publicly funded treatments, but how to do this remains unclear and underresearched. Worldwide, funding policies vary widely, often adopting controversial access criteria.MethodsWe investigated Belgian population preferences for prioritizing in vitro fertilization (IVF) funding through a discrete-choice experiment with a representative sample of 3,000 Belgians. Attributes included maternal and partner age, infertility cause, civil status, prior biological children, and treatment cost. Using a Bayesian D-optimal design and panel mixed logit model, we assessed criteria relevance. The resulting multiattribute utility function created a priority ranking of couples, which we compared to the ranking under the current Belgian policy, which focuses only on maternal age (<43 y).ResultsAnalysis of 29,670 prioritization choices identified maternal age, infertility cause, and prior biological children as key criteria. Maternal age of 35 y was prioritized highest, age 25 y as high as 40 y, followed by declining priority until 55 y. Biomedical malfunctions were prioritized over same-sex relationships or unhealthy lifestyles, with the latter prioritized lowest. Having no prior biological children was prioritized categorically higher than having 1, 2, or 3 children, all prioritized equally. Preferences were homogeneous across sociodemographic groups.ConclusionsHow to set IVF funding priorities remains a matter of debate. Our study shows that the Belgian population considers multiple criteria beyond maternal age to prioritize couples, calling for further discussion on ethical justifiability and access implications.HighlightsParenthood is a key life goal to many, but about 1 in 6 are affected by infertility. However, in most countries, public funding for fertility treatment is not provided to everyone who could benefit, and hard choices are inevitable.This study used a discrete-choice experiment in a representative sample of the Belgian population to investigate which criteria should be used for prioritization.Results indicated that maternal age, cause of infertility, and the number of prior biological children were the most significant factors in determining public support for IVF funding. Partner age, civil status of the couple, and cost of IVF treatment were not important.People use multiple criteria to set IVF funding priorities, beyond maternal age (the only criterion used in the current Belgian funding policy). Future research should explore the ethical justifiability and practical implications of using cause of infertility and number of prior children as additional criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"1034-1051"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251353524","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundParenthood is a key life goal for many, but infertility affects about 1 in 6 globally. While fertility treatments offer solutions, their high costs limit access. Many health systems provide public funding, yet budget constraints prevent fully funded access, often leaving patients with significant out-of-pocket costs. Policy makers face the challenge of prioritizing individuals for publicly funded treatments, but how to do this remains unclear and underresearched. Worldwide, funding policies vary widely, often adopting controversial access criteria.MethodsWe investigated Belgian population preferences for prioritizing in vitro fertilization (IVF) funding through a discrete-choice experiment with a representative sample of 3,000 Belgians. Attributes included maternal and partner age, infertility cause, civil status, prior biological children, and treatment cost. Using a Bayesian D-optimal design and panel mixed logit model, we assessed criteria relevance. The resulting multiattribute utility function created a priority ranking of couples, which we compared to the ranking under the current Belgian policy, which focuses only on maternal age (<43 y).ResultsAnalysis of 29,670 prioritization choices identified maternal age, infertility cause, and prior biological children as key criteria. Maternal age of 35 y was prioritized highest, age 25 y as high as 40 y, followed by declining priority until 55 y. Biomedical malfunctions were prioritized over same-sex relationships or unhealthy lifestyles, with the latter prioritized lowest. Having no prior biological children was prioritized categorically higher than having 1, 2, or 3 children, all prioritized equally. Preferences were homogeneous across sociodemographic groups.ConclusionsHow to set IVF funding priorities remains a matter of debate. Our study shows that the Belgian population considers multiple criteria beyond maternal age to prioritize couples, calling for further discussion on ethical justifiability and access implications.HighlightsParenthood is a key life goal to many, but about 1 in 6 are affected by infertility. However, in most countries, public funding for fertility treatment is not provided to everyone who could benefit, and hard choices are inevitable.This study used a discrete-choice experiment in a representative sample of the Belgian population to investigate which criteria should be used for prioritization.Results indicated that maternal age, cause of infertility, and the number of prior biological children were the most significant factors in determining public support for IVF funding. Partner age, civil status of the couple, and cost of IVF treatment were not important.People use multiple criteria to set IVF funding priorities, beyond maternal age (the only criterion used in the current Belgian funding policy). Future research should explore the ethical justifiability and practical implications of using cause of infertility and number of prior children as additional criteria.

权衡父母的意愿:对不孕夫妇优先接受公共资助生育治疗标准的综合分析。
为人父母是许多人的重要人生目标,但全球约有六分之一的人患有不孕症。虽然生育治疗提供了解决方案,但其高昂的费用限制了获取。许多卫生系统提供公共资金,但由于预算限制,无法获得全额资金,往往使患者承担巨额自付费用。政策制定者面临的挑战是让个人优先接受公共资助的治疗,但如何做到这一点仍然不清楚,研究也不足。在世界范围内,资助政策差异很大,通常采用有争议的获取标准。方法:我们通过对3000名比利时人的代表性样本进行离散选择实验,调查比利时人对体外受精(IVF)资金优先排序的偏好。属性包括母亲和伴侣年龄、不孕原因、公民身份、既往亲生子女和治疗费用。使用贝叶斯d -最优设计和面板混合logit模型,我们评估了标准的相关性。由此产生的多属性效用函数创建了一对夫妇的优先级排名,我们将其与当前比利时政策下的排名进行了比较,比利时政策只关注母亲的年龄(
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信