Willingness to pay and conjoint analysis to determine women's preferences for ovarian stimulating hormones in the treatment of infertility in Spain

被引:43
作者
Palumbo, A. [3 ]
De La Fuente, P. [4 ]
Rodriguez, M. [5 ]
Sanchez, F. [6 ]
Martinez-Salazar, J. [7 ]
Munoz, M. [8 ]
Marqueta, J. [9 ]
Hernandez, J. [3 ]
Espallardo, O. [1 ]
Polanco, C. [1 ,10 ]
Paz, S. [2 ]
Lizan, L. [2 ]
机构
[1] Hlth Econ & Outcomes Res, Madrid 28006, Spain
[2] Outcomes 10, Castellon de La Plana 12002, Spain
[3] FIVAP, Santa Cruz de La Palma 38204, CA, Spain
[4] CEFIVA, Oviedo 33011, Spain
[5] IVI Castellon, Castellon de La Plana 12004, Spain
[6] GINEMED, Seville 41001, Spain
[7] IVI Madrid, Madrid 28023, Spain
[8] IVI Alicante, Alicante 03015, Spain
[9] IBILAB, Palma De Mallorca 07011, Spain
[10] Merck SL Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
关键词
hormone fertility treatments; preferences; willingness to pay; conjoint analysis; infertility; IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION; PATIENT PREFERENCES; FOLLITROPIN ALPHA; HEALTH-CARE; EXPERIENCE; BETA;
D O I
10.1093/humrep/der139
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Despite many advances in assisted reproductive techniques (ART), little is known about preferences for technological developments of women undergoing fertility treatments. The aims of this study were to investigate the preferences of infertile women undergoing ART for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatments; to determine the utility values ascribed to different attributes of COS treatments; and to estimate women's willingness to pay (WTP) for COS. METHODS: A representative sample of ambulatory patients ready to receive, or receiving, COS therapies for infertility were recruited from seven specialized private centres in six autonomous communities in Spain. Descriptive, inferential and conjoint analyses (CA) were used to elicit preferences and WTP. Attributes and levels of COS treatments were identified by literature review and two focus groups with experts and patients. WTP valuations were derived by a combination of double-bounded (closed-ended) and open questions and contingent ranking methods. RESULTS: In total, 160 patients [mean (standard deviation; SD) age: 35.8 (4.2) years] were interviewed. Over half of the participants (55.0%) had a high level of education (university degree), most (78.8%) were married and half (50.0%) had an estimated net income of > (sic)1502 per month and had paid a mean (SD) (sic)1194.17 ((sic)778.29) for their most recent hormonal treatment. The most frequent causes of infertility were related to sperm abnormalities (50.3%). In 30.6% of cases, there were two causes of infertility. The maximum WTP for COS treatment was (sic)800 (median) per cycle; 35.5% were willing to pay an additional (sic)101-(sic)300 for a 1-2% effectiveness gain in the treatment. Utility values (CA) showed that effectiveness was the most valued attribute (39.82), followed by costs (18.74), safety (17.75) and information sharing with physicians (14.93). CONCLUSIONS: WTP for COS therapies exceeds current cost. Additional WTP exists for 1-2% effectiveness improvement. Effectiveness and costs were the most important determinants of preferences, followed by safety and information sharing with physicians.
引用
收藏
页码:1790 / 1798
页数:9
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] Treatment preferences and trade-offs for ovulation induction in clomiphene citrate-resistant patients with polycystic ovary syndrome
    Bayram, N
    van Wely, M
    van der Veen, F
    Bossuyt, PMM
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2005, 84 (02) : 420 - 425
  • [2] Status of human assisted reproduction in Spain: results from the new registry of Catalonia
    Bosser, Roser
    Gispert, Rosa
    Torne, Mar
    Calaf, Joaquim
    [J]. REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2009, 19 (05) : 727 - 733
  • [3] Economic evaluation of the administration of follitropin-β with a pen device
    Bruynesteyn, K
    Bonsel, GJ
    Braat, DDM
    Fauser, BCJM
    Devroey, P
    van Genugten, MLL
    [J]. REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2005, 11 (01) : 26 - 35
  • [4] Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view
    Cookson, R
    [J]. HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2003, 12 (11) : 891 - 894
  • [5] Devlin Nancy, 2003, Hum Fertil (Camb), V6 Suppl 1, pS2, DOI 10.1080/1464770312331369153
  • [6] Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics
    Hanley, N
    Ryan, M
    Wright, R
    [J]. HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2003, 12 (01) : 3 - 16
  • [7] Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in in-vitro fertilization treatment - clinical experience with follitropin alpha and follitropin beta
    Harlin, J
    Csemiczky, G
    Wramsby, H
    Fried, G
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2000, 15 (02) : 239 - 244
  • [8] Herath G., 2007, ERD TECHNICAL NOTE S, V23
  • [9] Funding in vitro fertilization treatment for persistent subfertility: the pain and the politics
    Hughes, EG
    Giacomini, M
    [J]. FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2001, 76 (03) : 431 - 442
  • [10] What do women want?: Women's experiences of infertility treatment
    Malin, M
    Hemminki, E
    Räikkönen, O
    Sihvo, S
    Perälä, ML
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2001, 53 (01) : 123 - 133