Economic evaluation of lifestyle interventions in infertility management: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Infertility, a global concern affecting both sexes, is influenced by modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. While the literature predominantly underscores the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in the realm of infertility treatment, a holistic compilation analysing the economic dimensions of such interventions is lacking. This systematic review aimed to fill this gap by evaluating the economic facets of lifestyle interventions in the management of infertility. METHODS: An exhaustive search was conducted within the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from their inception to February 2024. The aim was to find articles related to the economic aspects of lifestyle interventions in infertility management. These included clinical studies covering economic outcomes and economic evaluations. The Drummond Checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: From an initial yield of 7555 articles, five studies were deemed eligible for inclusion, comprising three cost-effectiveness analyses, one prospective cohort study and a randomized controlled trial, all of which were undertaken in high-income countries (the Netherlands, Australia and Japan). These studies included patients receiving infertility treatments for conditions such as unexplained infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome, ovulation disorders, or mild male infertility, inclusive of individuals with and without obesity. The women who participated in these studies were up to 45 years of age. The findings suggested that integrating lifestyle intervention programmes tends to enhance pregnancy and live birth outcomes. These programmes encompass coaching, psychological or behavioural guidance, nutritional adjustments, exercise regimes, weight management, smoking cessation and mindfulness techniques. Moreover, these interventions are likely to be more cost-effective than standard infertility care. CONCLUSION: For couples embarking on infertility treatments, the integration of lifestyle interventions into their management strategy not only fosters clinical benefits but also represents a cost-effective alternative to conventional care, particularly within high-income settings.

Local Government Initiatives: A Comprehensive Analysis of Infertility Diagnostic and Treatment Programs in Poland (2009-2020).

BACKGROUND Infertility is an increasingly significant public health problem. However, thanks to the achievements of modern medicine, it is possible to take steps to treat it. The objective of this study was to present data about programs for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility that were developed, implemented, and financed by local governments at all levels in Poland in 2009-2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study was conducted based on the analysis of existing data from the Minister of Health. We present data on infertility diagnostics and treatment programs, the number of programs in particular years, the number of programs implemented by individual levels of local governments, the number of people participating in the programs, and the total cost of the programs in EUR. RESULTS Programs aimed at diagnosing/treating infertility began to be implemented in 2012 (most were implemented in 2019 and 2020, 18 each). Twenty-three local governments of various levels, including 5 communes, 13 cities with poviat rights, 1 poviat, and 4 voivodeships, participated in the implementation of these programs. A total of 22 379 people were covered by infertility diagnosis and treatment programs in the years 2012-2020. The cost of all implemented programs was over EUR 10.7 million. CONCLUSIONS The legal situation in Poland caused the vast majority of infertile couples who wanted to have children to have to self-finance in vitro fertilization procedures. A small number of local governments undertook actions aimed at co-financing in vitro fertilization procedures.

Economic evaluations of assisted reproductive technologies in high-income countries: a systematic review.

STUDY QUESTION: Which assited reproductive technology (ART) interventions in high-income countries are cost-effective and which are not? SUMMARY ANSWER: Among all ART interventions assessed in economic evaluations, most high-cost interventions, including preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for a general population and ICSI for unexplained infertility, are unlikely to be cost-effective owing to minimal or no increase in effectiveness. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Approaches to reduce costs in order to increase access have been identified as a research priority for future infertility research. There has been an increasing number of ART interventions implemented in routine clinical practice globally, before robust assessments of evidence on economic evaluations. The extent of clinical effectiveness of some studied comparisons has been evaluated in high-quality research, allowing more informative decision making around cost-effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a systematic review and searched seven databases (MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, ECONLIT, SCOPUS, and CINAHL) for studies examining ART interventions for infertility together with an economic evaluation component (cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, or cost-minimization assessment), in high-income countries, published since January 2011. The last search was 22 June 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Two independent reviewers assessed publications and included those fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Studies were examined to assess the cost-effectiveness of the studied intervention, as well as the reporting quality of the study. The chosen outcome measure and payer perspective were also noted. Completeness of reporting was assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard. Results are presented and summarized based on the intervention studied. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The review included 40 studies which were conducted in 11 high-income countries. Most studies (n = 34) included a cost-effectiveness analysis. ART interventions included medication or strategies for controlled ovarian stimulation (n = 15), IVF (n = 9), PGT-A (n = 7), single embryo transfer (n = 5), ICSI (n = 3), and freeze-all embryo transfer (n = 1). Live birth was the mostly commonly reported primary outcome (n = 27), and quality-adjusted life years was reported in three studies. The health funder perspective was used in 85% (n = 34) of studies. None of the included studies measured patient preference for treatment. It remains uncertain whether PGT-A improves pregnancy rates compared to IVF cycles managed without PGT-A, and therefore cost-effectiveness could not be demonstrated for this intervention. Similarly, ICSI in non-male factor infertility appears not to be clinically effective compared to standard fertilization in an IVF cycle and is therefore not cost-effective. Interventions such as use of biosimilars or HMG for ovarian stimulation are cheaper but compromise clinical effectiveness. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Lack of both preference-based and standardized outcomes limits the comparability of results across studies. The selection of efficacy evidence offered for some interventions for economic evaluations is not always based on high-quality randomized trials and systematic reviews. In addition, there is insufficient knowledge of the willingness to pay thresholds of individuals and state funders for treatment of infertility. There is variable quality of reporting scores, which might increase uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Investment in strategies to help infertile people who utilize ART is justifiable at both personal and population levels. This systematic review may assist ART funders decide how to best invest to maximize the likelihood of delivery of a healthy child. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no funding for this study. E.C. and R.W. receive salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) through their fellowship scheme (EC GNT1159536, RW 2021/GNT2009767). M.D.-T. reports consulting fees from King Fahad Medical School. All other authors have no competing interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospero CRD42021261537.

Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. SEARCH METHODS: We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others. OUTCOMES: The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.

Financial ''risk-sharing'' or refund programs in assisted reproduction: an Ethics Committee opinion.

Financial "risk-sharing" fee structures in assisted reproduction programs charge patients a higher initial fee that includes multiple cycles but offers a partial or complete refund if treatment fails. This opinion of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee analyzes the ethical issues raised by these fee structures, including patient selection criteria, conflicts of interest, success rate transparency, and patient-informed consent. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2016.

Prevalence and characteristics of patients declined from pursuing in vitro fertilization with autologous oocytes.

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency of and factors associated with a patient being declined from pursuing a cycle of in vitro fertilization with autologous oocytes (IVF-AO). METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a nationwide cohort of female respondents aged 35 or over, who visited a US fertility clinic from 1/2015 to 3/2020, responded to the online FertilityIQ questionnaire ( http://www.fertilityiq.com ). All respondents were asked if they were previously declined from pursuing a cycle of IVF-AO. Examined demographic and clinical predictors included age, race/ethnicity, education, income, clinic type, care received in a mandated state, insurance coverage for fertility treatment, and self-reported infertility diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios for factors associated with being declined from pursuing IVF-AO. RESULTS: Of 8660 women who met inclusion criteria, 418 (4.8%) reported previously being declined a cycle of IVF-AO. In the multivariate analysis, predictors of being declined from pursuing IVF-AO included increasing age, income of less than $50,000, and diagnoses of poor oocyte quality and diminished ovarian reserve. Predictors of being less likely to report decline included some college or college degree and diagnoses of male factor, unexplained or tubal infertility. Notably, diagnosis of PCOS or residence in a state with mandated fertility coverage was not predictive of patients being declined from pursuing IVF-AO. CONCLUSION: Nearly 5% of patients who pursued IVF reported being declined from pursuing IVF-AO. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and explore whether patients being declined treatment meet the criteria for futile or very poor prognosis.

Restricted access to assisted reproductive technology and fertility preservation: legal and ethical issues.

Access to assisted reproductive technology (ART) and fertility preservation remains restricted in middle and low income countries. We sought to review the status of ART and fertility preservation in Brazil, considering social indicators and legislative issues that may hinder the universal access to these services. Although the Brazilian Constitution expressly provides the right to health, and ordinary law ensures the state is obliged to support family planning, access to services related to ART and fertility preservation is neither easy nor egalitarian in Brazil. Only a handful of public hospitals provide free ART, and their capacity far from meets demand. Health insurance does not cover ART, and the cost of private care is unaffordable to most people. Brazilian law supports, but does not command, the state provision of ART and fertility preservation to guarantee the right to family planning; therefore, the availability of state-funded treatments is still scarce, reinforcing social disparities. Economic projections suggest that including ART in the Brazilian health system is affordable and may actually become profitable to the state in the long term, not to mention the ethical imperative of recognizing infertility as a disease, with no reason to be excluded from a health system that claims to be 'universal'.

Innovations in infertility: a comprehensive analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the interventional clinical trials in infertility and to assess whether trial location or industry sponsorship was associated with trial noncompletion. DESIGN: Retrospective review of trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. SETTING: None. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Descriptive statistics characterizing the attributes of the clinical trials including intervention type, topic, population, completion status, size, location, sponsor, and results. The effects of the sponsor and trial location on trial noncompletion were assessed via logistic regression. RESULT(S): In total, 505 trials initiated between 2010 and 2020 were included in our analysis. Drug interventions were the most commonly studied (45%); ovarian stimulation trials accounted for 27% of the studies. Live birth was tracked as an outcome by 20% of the studies; 3% of the trials included mental health outcomes. Few trials (15%) enrolled male participants. Only 11% of the trials reported results, and 4% of the trials reported the race or ethnicity of the participants. Most trials (82%) were conducted outside the United States. Overall, 18% of the trials were not completed, most often because of lack of accrual (47%). United States trials had over twice the odds of noncompletion in univariate analysis (odds ratio = 2.48, 95% confidence interval = [1.47, 4.17]); however, this relationship lost significance after adjusting for potential confounders (odds ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval = [0.42, 2.14]). Trial sponsorship was not associated with trial noncompletion. CONCLUSION(S): Infertility trials predominantly investigated drug interventions, particularly ovarian stimulation. Live birth was an infrequent outcome despite its relevance to patients. Clinical trials should aim to address the unmet needs in fertility care and be inclusive of underserved populations affected by infertility.

Unmet financial burden of infertility care and the impact of state insurance mandates in the United States: analysis from a popular crowdfunding platform.

OBJECTIVE: To examine infertility-related fund-raising campaigns on a popular crowdfunding website and to compare campaign characteristics across states with and without legislative mandates for insurance coverage for infertility-related care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Online crowdfunding platform (GoFundMe) between 2010 and 2020. PATIENT(S): GoFundMe campaigns in the United States containing the keywords "fertility" and "infertility." INTERVENTION(S): State insurance mandates for infertility treatment coverage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcomes included fund-raising goals, funds raised, campaign location, and campaigns per capita. RESULT(S): Of the 3,332 infertility-related campaigns analyzed, a total goal of $52.6 million was requested, with $22.5 million (42.8%) successfully raised. The average goal was $18,639 (standard deviation [SD] $32,904), and the average amount raised was $6,759 (SD $14,270). States with insurance mandates for infertility coverage had fewer crowdfunding campaigns per capita (0.75 vs. 1.15 campaigns per 100,000 population than states without insurance mandates. CONCLUSION(S): We found a large number of campaigns requesting financial assistance for costs associated with infertility care, indicating a substantial unmet financial burden. States with insurance mandates had fewer campaigns per capita, suggesting that mandates are effective in mitigating this financial burden. These data can inform future health policy legislation on the state and federal levels to assist with the financial burden of infertility.

Disparities in access to effective treatment for infertility in the United States: an Ethics Committee opinion.

In the United States, economic, racial, ethnic, geographic, and other disparities prevent access to fertility treatment and affect treatment outcomes. This opinion examines the factors that contribute to these disparities, proposes actions to address them, and replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2015.

Condition, disease, disability: how the label used to describe infertility may affect public support for fertility treatment coverage.

PURPOSE: To assess public attitudes towards fertility treatment coverage and whether attitudes are influenced by infertility labels. METHODS: Cross-sectional, web survey-based experiment using a national sample of 1226 United States adults. Participants read identical descriptions about infertility, with the exception of random assignment to infertility being labeled as a "condition," "disease," or "disability." Participants then responded to questions measuring their beliefs and attitudes towards policies related to the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. We measured public support for infertility policies, public preference for infertility labels, and whether support differed by the randomly assigned label used. We also queried associations between demographic data and support for infertility policies. RESULTS: Support was higher for insurance coverage of infertility treatments (p=.014) and fertility preservation (p=.017), and infertility public assistance programs (p=.036) when infertility was described as a "disease" or "disability" compared to "condition." Participants who were younger, were planning or trying to conceive, had a family member or friend with infertility, and/or had a more liberal political outlook were more likely to support infertility policies. A majority of participants (78%) felt the term "condition" was the best label to describe infertility, followed by "disability" (12%). The least popular label was "disease" (10%). Those preferring "condition" were older (p<.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic White (p=.046), and less likely to have an infertility diagnosis (p<.001). CONCLUSION: While less commonly identified as the best descriptors of infertility, labeling infertility as a "disease" or "disability" may increase support for policies that improve access to infertility care.

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of a web-based application to manage medications during in vitro fertilization.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a web-based application that assists in medication management during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. SETTING: University hospitals. PATIENT(S): Women undergoing IVF. INTERVENTION(S): Subjects were recruited to assess quality of life during IVF and were randomly assigned to use either the OnTrack application to assist with medication management or conventional medication management. Surveys were administered at four time points. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Medication surplus, incidence of medication errors, amount of patient-initiated communication, and patient satisfaction. RESULT(S): A total of 153 women participated. The average number of portal messages and telephone calls was similar between groups. Twelve patients in the control group (12/69, 17.4%) and 8 patients in the case group (8/72, 11.1%) made medication errors. There were similar amounts of medication surplus in the two groups. The estimated cost of medication waste was $2,578 ± $2,056 in the control group and $2,554 ± $1,855 in the case group. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION(S): Use of a web-based application did not decrease medication errors, medication surplus, or patient-initiated messages. Many patients had a medication surplus, which can be an area of cost reduction during IVF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03383848.

"Add-Ons" for Assisted Reproductive Technology: Do Patients Get Honest Information from Fertility Clinics' Websites?

"Add-on" procedures are actively promoted on some fertility clinic websites as proven means to improve IVF success rates, especially for couples with repeated implantation/IVF failures. However, the actual contribution of these interventions to live birth rates remains inconclusive. At present, little is known about the type and quality of the information provided on the IVF clinics' websites regarding the merits of "add-ons." A systematic evaluation of the quality of information on "add-on" procedures in fertility clinic websites was performed using 10-criteria structured questionnaire. We included English language websites that presented in the Google.com search engine after typing the following key-words:"endometrial scratching"(ES), "intralipid infusions"(ILI), "assisted hatching"(AHA), "PGT-A," or "PGS". In total, 254 websites were evaluated. In most cases, an accurate description of the "add-on" procedures was provided (78.8%). However, only a minority (12%) reported their undetermined effectiveness. The use of PGT-A was more often encouraged (52.8%) than ES (23.6%) and AHA (16%). The cost was infrequently presented (6.9%). Scientific references were only rarely provided for ILI, versus 12.7% for ES, 4.0% for AHA, and 5.6% for PGT-A. The information entry date was often missing. None of the websites reported the clinic's pregnancy-rate following the "add-on" procedures. Information on "add-ons" available to patients from IVF clinic websites is often inaccurate. This could perpetuate false myths among infertile patients about these procedures and raises concern regarding possible commercial bias. It is imperative that IVF clinic websites will better communicate the associated risks and uncertainties of "add-ons" to prospective patients.

Dropout rate and cumulative birth outcomes in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization within a funded and actively managed system of care in New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the dropout rate between the first and second in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in a controlled population derived from a funded and actively managed system of care in New Zealand, including the reason for dropout and associated cumulative live birth rate. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Multicenter IVF practice. PATIENT(S): Couples qualifying for publicly funded IVF treatment under New Zealand's Clinical Priority Assessment Criteria. Couples (n = 974) started treatment between July 2011 and June 2013, used their own gametes, and were eligible for up to 2 IVF packages of funded care (including the transfer of surplus embryos). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): IVF dropout rate, reason for dropout, and cumulative live birth rate. RESULT(S): A low IVF dropout rate between the first and second IVF cycle was reported within this controlled IVF population, with 10% of couples discontinuing treatment for reasons related to stress. The cumulative live birth rate in this "low dropout" population was 59% at the end of treatment, ranging from 72% (≤30 years) to 42% (38-39 years) according to female age. Most patients who discontinued for stress had a good prognosis, and a third of patients still had embryos in cryostorage. Only 30% of those who discontinued used the funded counseling services. CONCLUSION(S): A low dropout rate (10%) can be achieved within an actively managed IVF population. This was lower than previously reported, suggesting that prognosis, cost, and treatment management are the significant causes of dropout within the general IVF population. Couples with many embryos also require psychological support because of treatment fatigue or repeated transfers.

Basics of practice management: managing many for the care of one.

In today's changing health care landscape, it has become necessary that providers have a fundamental understanding of practice management as pertinent to the care they provide. The reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) practice is a uniquely complex setting with many component parts, necessitating frequent assessment and collaboration to provide safe, quality, and cost-effective care. In this review, we aim to describe the basics of medical practice management, divided into six sections: practice models; operations; patient safety; patient experience; employee recruitment; development, and satisfaction; and technology. These topics will be presented with a focus on the application of these principles to the REI practice.

Fertility-a human right worthy of mandated insurance coverage: the evolution, limitations, and future of access to care.

We review the history, current status, and potential future of state infertility mandates and focus on the business implications of mandates and on the inadequacies and reproductive injustice resulting from gaps between legislative intent and practical implementation. Nineteen states have passed laws that require insurers to either cover or offer coverage for infertility diagnoses and treatment. The qualifications for coverage, extent of coverage, and exemptions vary drastically from one state to another, resulting in deficiencies in access to care even within mandated states for certain groups, such as single individuals, patients in same-sex relationships, and patients pursuing fertility preservation. Although insurance coverage of fertility services in the United States has expanded as an increasing number of states have enacted infertility mandates, significant gaps in implementation and access remain even among states with existing mandates. Provider, patient, and legislative advocacy is warranted in the name of reproductive justice to expand insurance coverage and, in turn, maximize reproductive outcomes, which have been shown to improve as financial barriers are lifted.

Willingness of Infertile Couples to Pay for In Vitro Fertilization Treatment in the Integrated Human Reproduction Section of the Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo Federal University.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the willingness to pay (WTP) of infertile couples for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. METHOD: This was a prospective study with an anonymous questionnaire for infertile couples in an academic setting. Clinical characteristics were analyzed by a Student's t test or Mann-Whitney test, categorical variables were compared by a chi-square or Fisher exact test, and correlations were assessed using a Spearman's test. An alpha of 5% was adopted. RESULTS: Mean female and male ages were 31.5 and 35.9 years, respectively; 80.2% were married; 19.8% were in consensual union; 48.1% of women had college degrees; and 49.4% of men had a high school education. Most women (77.8%) and men (75.3%) were white, with a household income of class C. Average duration of union was 8.5 years, and average infertility was 4.7 years. Using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) evaluation and the technique of "direct questioning," the average value was determined to be R$18 720.18 (by payment scale R$22 831.17). WTP positively correlated with household income and each woman's education level. Previous parenthood or use of public health system negatively correlated with WTP. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the higher the couple's monthly income and the woman's educational level, the higher the WTP for an IVF treatment; previous parenthood determined a lower WTP for an IVF treatment, and previous use of the Brazilian Unified Health System, determined a lower WTP for an IVF treatment.

Infertility and reproductive rights after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization, halting the principal income activities worldwide. The International Monetary Fund predicts that the imminent economic recession will be worse than the global financial crisis of 2008, which severely affected the economy of Southern European countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain. There was then an abysmal drop in the Spanish yearly population growth curve as families could not afford to have children in that economic context; this only worsened the already existing demographic problems in that Spain has a constantly ageing population and one of the lowest fertility indicators in Europe. Taking into consideration that female age is the most important independent variable of success at the time of conception, probably thousands of potentially fertile couples were lost while waiting for more promising circumstances. With the COVID-19 pandemic a similar situation is being faced, where reproductive rights are imperiled by not being able to choose when to have children due to economic coercion. Therefore, governments worldwide should take measures to palliate the possible sociodemographic crisis that will follow the economic recession and try to ease the burden that many families might face during the following years.