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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Marieke Krol, Annemiek Nap, Renée Michels, Christiaan Veraart, Lucas Goossens
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