Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40950655›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in reproductive health2025

Policy solutions to improve access to fertility treatment and optimise patient care: consensus from an expert forum.

G David Adamson, Hannah Armstrong, Ying Cheong, Elaine Damato, Human Fatemi, Rui Ferriani, Georg Griesinger, William Leigh Ledger, Michele Pistollato, Antonio Pellicer and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

G David AdamsonInternational Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Hannah ArmstrongCharles River Associates International, Inc., London, United Kingdom.
Ying CheongUniversity of Southampton, Human Development and Health, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
Elaine DamatoCharles River Associates International, Inc., London, United Kingdom.
Human FatemiART Fertility Clinics LLC, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Rui FerrianiUniversity of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Georg GriesingerDepartment of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.
William Leigh LedgerSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Michele PistollatoCharles River Associates International, Inc., London, United Kingdom.
Antonio PellicerIVIRMA Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Angelina PetrovaCharles River Associates International, Inc., London, United Kingdom.
Luk RombautsMonash IVF, Cremone, NSW, Australia.
Tim WilsdonCharles River Associates International, Inc., London, United Kingdom.
Søren ZiebeLaboratory of Reproductive Biology, The Fertility Department, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Infertility is an underrecognized disease which affects over 17% of the reproductive age population worldwide. However, availability of, and access to, assisted reproductive technology (ART) is variable across countries. There are significant challenges relating to awareness, financial and other barriers to care, cultural considerations, and the level of support provided to people undergoing care. Previous studies have explored these challenges, but less attention has been given to the policy implications. As the need for fertility care rises, we investigate the evidence that policy changes can be implemented to improve access to ART treatment. Methods: A review of literature was conducted on fertility policy challenges and developments, covering fertility recognition and awareness; cultural and religious considerations; and access to ART treatment, psycho-social care, and supplementary care. Nine medical and academic experts were invited to validate secondary research findings and provide their perspectives on policy implications. The experts covered different specialties and geographic expertise. Experts participated in individual 60-minute interviews, then a half-day Policy Forum discussion was held virtually in May 2023. Results: Lack of recognition of infertility as a disease, low financial coverage of fertility services, limited psychosocial support, and cultural considerations are substantial barriers to fertility services access. Some countries have limited reimbursement of services or offer only private care, significantly limiting treatment access. Others restrict reimbursement based on age, gender and family status, which creates access inequities. Policy action is needed to mitigate these challenges and to ensure timely and equitable access to fertility care. Decision-makers need to collectively recognize infertility as a disease, rather than just a social issue. Equity of access to infertility services should be ensured by expanding the availability of public funding, along with review and rationalisation of criteria for treatment reimbursement. To improve engagement in treatment and support through the fertility journey, access to psychosocial care should be expanded and included as a core service. Conclusion: Major obstacles to accessing ART treatment have been identified across regions globally, highlighting the urgent need for national policy action to enhance care quality by reviewing current legislation, improving patient and physician education, refining reimbursement procedures, and expanding psychosocial support services.

Indexed as

assisted reproductive technologyfertility policyfertility treatmentinfertilitypolicy recommendations

Identifiers

PMID40950655
PMCPMC12426281

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.