Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility
Abstract Background Health state utility values allow for comparison of treatments across different diseases. Utility values for fertility-impaired health states are currently unavailable. Such values are necessary in order to determine the relative costs-effectiveness of fertility treatments. Metho...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2019-05-01
|
Series: | Reproductive Health |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12978-019-0706-9 |
id |
doaj-6703943f985146f299614ba0fb4cad4b |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-6703943f985146f299614ba0fb4cad4b2020-11-25T02:38:55ZengBMCReproductive Health1742-47552019-05-011611910.1186/s12978-019-0706-9Health state utilities for infertility and subfertilityMarieke Krol0Annemiek Nap1Renée Michels2Christiaan Veraart3Lucas Goossens4IQVIARijnstate Hospital ArnhemIQVIAMerck B.VErasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Health Policy & ManagementAbstract Background Health state utility values allow for comparison of treatments across different diseases. Utility values for fertility-impaired health states are currently unavailable. Such values are necessary in order to determine the relative costs-effectiveness of fertility treatments. Methods This study aimed to determine utility weights for infertile and subfertile health states. In addition, it explored the Dutch general population’s opinions regarding the inclusion of infertility treatments in the Dutch health insurers’ basic benefit package. An online questionnaire was designed to determine the health-related quality of life values of six fertility-impaired health states. The study population consisted of a representative sample of the Dutch adult population. Respondents were asked to evaluate the health states through direct health valuation methods, i.e. the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Time Trade-Off (TTO) method. In addition, respondents were asked about their opinions regarding reimbursement of fertility-related treatments. Results The respondents’ (n = 767) VAS scores ranged from 0.640 to 0.796. TTO utility values ranged from 0.792 to 0.868. Primary infertility and subfertility was valued lower than secondary infertility and subfertility. In total, 92% of the respondents stated that fertility treatments should be fully or partially reimbursed by the health insurance basic benefit package. Conclusions Having fertility problems results in substantial disutilities according to the viewpoint of the Dutch general population. The results make it possible to compare the value for money of infertility treatment to that of treatments in other disease areas. There is strong support among the general population for reimbursing fertility treatments through the Dutch basic benefit package.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12978-019-0706-9InfertilitySubfertilityFertility problemsQuality of lifeTime trade-offUtility |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Marieke Krol Annemiek Nap Renée Michels Christiaan Veraart Lucas Goossens |
spellingShingle |
Marieke Krol Annemiek Nap Renée Michels Christiaan Veraart Lucas Goossens Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility Reproductive Health Infertility Subfertility Fertility problems Quality of life Time trade-off Utility |
author_facet |
Marieke Krol Annemiek Nap Renée Michels Christiaan Veraart Lucas Goossens |
author_sort |
Marieke Krol |
title |
Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility |
title_short |
Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility |
title_full |
Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility |
title_fullStr |
Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility |
title_full_unstemmed |
Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility |
title_sort |
health state utilities for infertility and subfertility |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
Reproductive Health |
issn |
1742-4755 |
publishDate |
2019-05-01 |
description |
Abstract Background Health state utility values allow for comparison of treatments across different diseases. Utility values for fertility-impaired health states are currently unavailable. Such values are necessary in order to determine the relative costs-effectiveness of fertility treatments. Methods This study aimed to determine utility weights for infertile and subfertile health states. In addition, it explored the Dutch general population’s opinions regarding the inclusion of infertility treatments in the Dutch health insurers’ basic benefit package. An online questionnaire was designed to determine the health-related quality of life values of six fertility-impaired health states. The study population consisted of a representative sample of the Dutch adult population. Respondents were asked to evaluate the health states through direct health valuation methods, i.e. the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Time Trade-Off (TTO) method. In addition, respondents were asked about their opinions regarding reimbursement of fertility-related treatments. Results The respondents’ (n = 767) VAS scores ranged from 0.640 to 0.796. TTO utility values ranged from 0.792 to 0.868. Primary infertility and subfertility was valued lower than secondary infertility and subfertility. In total, 92% of the respondents stated that fertility treatments should be fully or partially reimbursed by the health insurance basic benefit package. Conclusions Having fertility problems results in substantial disutilities according to the viewpoint of the Dutch general population. The results make it possible to compare the value for money of infertility treatment to that of treatments in other disease areas. There is strong support among the general population for reimbursing fertility treatments through the Dutch basic benefit package. |
topic |
Infertility Subfertility Fertility problems Quality of life Time trade-off Utility |
url |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12978-019-0706-9 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT mariekekrol healthstateutilitiesforinfertilityandsubfertility AT annemieknap healthstateutilitiesforinfertilityandsubfertility AT reneemichels healthstateutilitiesforinfertilityandsubfertility AT christiaanveraart healthstateutilitiesforinfertilityandsubfertility AT lucasgoossens healthstateutilitiesforinfertilityandsubfertility |
_version_ |
1724788859593555968 |