Dataset Information

Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: Public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Fertility rates in Europe are among the lowest in the world, which may be attributed to both biological and lifestyle factors. Cost and reimbursement of fertility treatments vary across Europe, although its citizens enjoy wide access to fertility care. Since few regional studies evaluating public support for fertility treatment exist, we conducted the Listening IVF and Fertility in Europe (LIFE) survey to ascertain public perception of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gamete donation as a treatment for infertility among European men and women. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This survey was distributed via an online questionnaire to 8,682 individuals who were voluntary participants in an online research panel residing in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, or the UK. The survey covered items to determine respondents' beliefs regarding IVF and its success, the need for public funding, the use of IVF among modern families with different lifestyles, and the support for gamete donation. Results were analyzed by age, country of origin, sex, and sexual orientation. A total of 6,110 (70% of total) men and women responded. Among all respondents, 10% had undergone IVF treatment and 48% had considered or would consider IVF in case of infertility. Respondents estimated IVF mean success rate to be 47% and over half of respondents believed that availability of IVF would encourage people to delay conception. Although 93% of respondents believed that IVF treatment should be publicly funded to some extent, a majority believed that secondary infertility or use of fertility treatments allowing to delay parenthood should be financed privately. Survey respondents believed that the mean number of stimulated IVF cycles funded publicly should be limited 2 to 3 (average 2.4). 79% of respondents were willing to pay for IVF if needed with a mean amount of 5,400 € for a child brought to life through IVF. According to respondents, mean minimum and maximum ages for IVF should be 29 and 42 years old, respectively. The current survey showed support for egg and sperm donation (78%), for IVF in single women (61%) and for same-sex female couples (64%). When analyzing the results per group (i.e., sex, age, sexual orientation, and countries), youngest age groups, homosexuals, bisexuals, German respondents, and men had similar overall positive attitudes and beliefs toward IVF and opinions on public funding. Perceived limits to availability were stronger in women. CONCLUSION:Overall, the survey results demonstrate a positive attitude among respondents in an online panel toward IVF, gamete donation, and support for public funding for fertility treatment. These findings could potentially drive discussions between patients and prescribers to explore IVF treatment and among legislators and payers to support public funding for these procedures.

SUBMITTER: Fauser BCJM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6347360 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: Public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries.

Fauser Bart C J M BCJM Boivin Jacky J Barri Pedro N PN Tarlatzis Basil C BC Schmidt Lone L Levy-Toledano Rachel R

PloS one 20190125 1

<h4>Background</h4>Fertility rates in Europe are among the lowest in the world, which may be attributed to both biological and lifestyle factors. Cost and reimbursement of fertility treatments vary across Europe, although its citizens enjoy wide access to fertility care. Since few regional studies evaluating public support for fertility treatment exist, we conducted the Listening IVF and Fertility in Europe (LIFE) survey to ascertain public perception of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gamete d ...[more]

PMID: 30682152

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that attitudes towards depression may be influenced by country-specific social and cultural factors. A survey was carried out to collect beliefs on and attitudes toward depression in Italy, which has an established community-based mental health system.MethodsA telephone survey was carried out in a probabilistic sample aged ≥15 years. A 20-item questionnaire was administered to explore knowledge of depression, stigma, causal beliefs, treatment preference, and help-seeking attitudes.ResultsOf the 1001 participants, 98% were aware of depression, and 62% had experienced it, either directly or indirectly. A widespread belief (75%) was that people suffering from depression should avoid talking about their problem. A minority of the sample viewed depression as a condition that should be managed without recourse to external help or a "socially dangerous" illness. Among perceived causes of depression, most respondents mentioned life stressors or physical strains. Psychologists were often indicated as an adequate source of professional help. Half of the sample believed that depression should be pharmacologically treated, but drugs were often seen as addictive. Referring to a primary care physician (PCP) was considered embarrassing; furthermore, many people thought that PCPs are too busy to treat patients suffering from depression.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that depression is seen as a reaction to significant life events that should be overcome with the support of significant others or the help of health professionals (mainly psychologists). However, there are still barriers to the disclosure of depressive symptoms to PCPs, and concerns about the addictive effect of antidepressants. In the presence of a gap between people's beliefs and what health professionals consider appropriate for the treatment of depression, a "shared decision making" approach to treatment selection should be adopted taking into account the patients' preference for psychological interventions to ensure active compliance with effective treatments.

Project description:Dairy farm systems have intensified to meet growing demands for animal products, but public opposition to this intensification has also grown due, in part, to concerns about animal welfare. One approach to addressing challenges in agricultural systems has been through the addition of new technologies, including genetic modification. Previous studies have reported some public resistance towards the use of these technologies in agriculture, but this research has assessed public attitudes toward individual practices and technologies and few studies have examined a range of practices on dairy farms. In the present study, we presented participants with four scenarios describing dairy practices (cow-calf separation, the fate of excess dairy calves, pasture access and disbudding). Citizens from Canada and the United States (n = 650) indicated their support (on a 7-point scale) toward five approaches (maintaining standard farm practice, using a naturalistic approach, using a technological approach, or switching to plant-based or yeast-based milk production) aimed at addressing the welfare issues associated with the four dairy practices. Respondents also provided a text-based rationale for their responses and answered a series of demographic questions including age, gender, and diet. Participant diet affected attitudes toward milk alternatives, with vegetarians and vegans showing more support for the plant-based and yeast-based milk production. Regardless of diet, most participants opposed genetic modification technologies and supported more naturalistic practices. Qualitative responses provided insight into participants' values and concerns, and illustrated a variety of perceived benefits and concerns related to the options presented. Common themes included animal welfare, ethics of animal use, and opposition toward technology. We conclude that Canadian and US citizens consider multiple aspects of farm systems when contemplating animal welfare concerns, and tend to favor naturalistic approaches over technological solutions, especially when the latter are based on genetic modification.

Project description:Study questionDoes an informed group of citizens endorse the clinical use of mitochondrial donation in a country where this is not currently permitted?Summary answerAfter hearing balanced expert evidence and having opportunity for deliberation, a majority (11/14) of participants in a citizens' jury believed that children should be able to be born using mitochondrial donation.What is known alreadyResearch suggests that patients, oocyte donors and health professionals support mitochondrial donation to prevent transmission of mitochondrial disease. Less is known about public acceptability of this novel reproductive technology, especially from evidence using deliberative methods.Study design, size, durationThis study comprised a citizens' jury, an established method for determining the views of a well-informed group of community members. The jury had 14 participants, and ran over one and a half days in 2017.Participants/materials, setting, methodsJurors were members of the public with no experience of mitochondrial disease. They heard and engaged with relevant evidence and were asked to answer the question: 'Should Australia allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation?'Main results and the role of chanceEleven jurors decided that Australia should allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation; 7 of whom added conditions such as the need to limit who can access the intervention. Three jurors decided that children should not (or not yet) be born using this intervention. All jurors were particularly interested in the reliability of evidence, licensing/regulatory mechanisms and the rights of children to access information about their oocyte donors.Limitations, reasons for cautionJurors' views were well informed and reflected critical deliberation and discussion, but are not intended to be representative of the whole population.Wider implications of the findingsWhen presented with high quality evidence, combined with opportunities to undertake structured deliberation of novel reproductive technologies, members of the public are able to engage in detailed discussions. This is the first study to use an established deliberative method to gauge public views towards mitochondrial donation.Study funding/competing interest(s)This study was funded by a University of Sydney Industry and Community Collaboration Seed Award (2017), which was awarded contingent on additional funding from the Mito Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the Mito Foundation. The Foundation was not involved in jury facilitation or deliberation, nor analysis of research data.Trial registration numberNot applicable.

Project description:Importance:Public reporting of procedural outcomes has been associated with lower rates of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and worse outcomes after myocardial infarction. Contemporary data are limited on the influence of public reporting on interventional cardiologists' clinical decision making. Objective:To survey a contemporary cohort of interventional cardiologists in Massachusetts and New York about how public reporting of PCI outcomes influences clinical decision making. Design, Setting, and Participants:An online survey was developed with public reporting experts and administered electronically to eligible physicians in Massachusetts and New York who were identified by Doximity (an online physician networking site) and 2014 Medicare fee-for-service claims for PCI procedures. The personal and hospital characteristics of participants were ascertained via a comprehensive database from Doximity and the American Hospital Association annual surveys of US hospitals (2012 and 2013) and linked to survey responses. Associations between survey responses and characteristics of participants were evaluated in univariable and multivariable analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures:Reported rate of avoidance of performing PCIs in high-risk patients and of perception of pressure from colleagues to avoid performing PCIs. Results:Of the 456 physicians approached, 149 (32.7%) responded, including 67 of 129 (51.9%) in Massachusetts and 82 of 327 (25.1%) in New York. The mean (SD) age was 49 (9.2) years; 141 of 149 participants (94.6%) were men. Most participants reported practicing at medium to large, nonprofit hospitals with high-volume cardiac catheterization laboratories and cardiothoracic surgery capabilities. In 2014, participants had higher annual PCI volumes among Medicare patients than nonparticipants did (median, 31; interquartile range [IQR], 13-47 vs median, 17; IQR, 0-41; P < .001). Among participants, 65% reported avoiding PCIs on at least 2 occasions becase of concern that a bad outcome would negatively impact their publicly reported outcomes; 59% reported sometimes or often being pressured by colleagues to avoid performing PCIs because of a concern about the patient's risk of death. After multivariable adjustment, more years of experience practicing interventional cardiology was associated with lower odds of PCI avoidance. The state of practice was not associated with survey responses. Conclusions and Relevance:Current PCI public reporting programs can foster risk-averse clinical practice patterns, which do not vary significantly between interventional cardiologists in New York and Massachusetts. Coordinated efforts by policy makers, health systems leadership, and the interventional cardiology community are needed to mitigate these unintended consequences.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest.ResultsOne way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources.ConclusionAggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.

Dataset Information

Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: Public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries.

Publications

Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: Public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets