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

PLoS One. 2019 Jan 25;14(1):e0211150. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211150. eCollection 2019.

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.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Age Factors
  • Attitude*
  • Culture*
  • Europe
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Reproductive Techniques, Assisted*
  • Sex Factors

Grants and funding

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.