Cited by 12Reproductive Health and TechnologiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Health state utilities for infertility and subfertility

Open access
Krol, Marieke, Nap, Annemiek, Michels, Renée, Veraart, Christiaan, Goossens, Lucas·2019·Reproductive Health

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12978-019-0706-9

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krol, M., Nap, A., Michels, R., Veraart, C., & Goossens, L.
Affiliations
  • IQVIA (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Rijnstate Hospital (NL)
  • Merck KGaA, Darmstadt (Germany) (DE)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Krol, Marieke
Venue
Reproductive Health
Published
2019-05-03
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
47-47
ISSN
1742-4755 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2943515634
Cited by
12
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Reproductive Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
health utility, infertility, subfertility, infertility treatment, health-related quality of life, time trade-off, visual analogue scale, health insurance reimbursement, cost-effectiveness, Dutch population
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Infertility, Insurance, Health, Male, Netherlands, State Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review