Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Globalization and Health
Published in: Globalization and Health 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Infertility | Research

Infertility policy analysis: a comparative study of selected lower middle- middle- and high-income countries

Authors: Bahar Morshed-Behbahani, Minoor Lamyian, Hassan Joulaei, Batool Hossein Rashidi, Ali Montazeri

Published in: Globalization and Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Infertility has recently become a salient but neglected global issue. Policies to address the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are vital, especially in lower middle and middle-income countries (LMICs). Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the national infertility policies in the selected countries (LMICs comparing with high-income) to determine gaps or to confirm desirable policies in the given health systems.

Methods

This study has executed a comparative policy analysis of infertility services using the universal health coverage framework (financial protection, population coverage, and service features) in three scopes (prevention, treatment, and supportive care). Seven countries that had infertility programs in their health sectors were selected.

Results

The results showed that financial protection was good in high and middle-income countries, but in a lower middle income, and in one high-income country was poor. The findings also showed that health systems in the same countries had no infertility services for men. Preventive and supportive care services were neglected in LMICs by governments.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that income is not the only factor that fulfills universal health coverage for infertility care services. Perhaps to achieve equity in infertility care services, it should be seen as a universal human right to accomplish the right to have a child and to have a life with physical and mental health for all men and women.
Literature
1.
Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62:2–10.
2.
Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411–26.
3.
4.
Morshed-Behbahani B, Mossalanejad L, Shahsavari S, Dastpak M. The experiences of infertile women on assistant reproductive treatments: a phenomenological study. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2012;14(6):382–3.
5.
Organization WH. Sexual and reproductive health: infertility terminology and definitions. 2015.
6.
van der Poel SZ. Historical walk: the HRP special Programme and infertility. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2012;74(3):218–27.
7.
Kissin DM, Boulet SL, Jamieson DJ. Assisted reproductive technology S, research T. fertility treatments in the United States: improving access and outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(2):387–90.
8.
Tannus S, Dahan MH. Decrease in American birth rates makes it imperative for the United States to implement state mandated fertility coverage. J Med Econ. 2019;22(3):252–3.
9.
Bitler MP, Schmidt L. Utilization of infertility treatments: the effects of insurance mandates. Demography. 2012;49(1):125–49.
10.
Blyth E. Guidelines for infertility counselling in different countries: is there an emerging trend?†. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(7):2046–57.
11.
12.
13.
The World Health Report:HEALTH SYSTEMS FINANCING. The path to universal coverage. Switzerland: the World Health Organization; 2010.
14.
Mathur MR, Williams DM, Reddy KS, Watt RG. Universal health coverage: a unique policy opportunity for oral health. J Dent Res. 2015;94(3 Suppl):3S–5S.
15.
Sarac M, Koc I. PREVALENCE AND RISK FACTORS OF INFERTILITY IN TURKEY: EVIDENCE FROM DEMOGRAPHIC AND HEALTH SURVEYS, 1993-2013. J Biosoc Sci. 2018;50(4):472–90.
16.
Wellings K, Gibson LJ, Palmer MJ, Macdowall W, Datta J, Glasier A, et al. Prevalence of infertility and help seeking among 15 000 women and men. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(9):2108–18.
17.
Rubin G, Wilkes S, Chinn DJ, Murdoch A. Epidemiology and management of infertility: a population-based study in UK primary care. Fam Pract. 2009;26(4):269–74.
18.
Bunting L, Boivin J, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(6):1506–12.
19.
Herbert D. Fertility and infertility : studies in reproductive epidemiology in Australia [PhD]: the University of Queensland; 2011.
20.
Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF, King RB, Trumble AC, Sundaram R, et al. Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(5):1324–31.e1.
21.
Loi K, Lau M, Loh SF, Tan YY, Hong GS, Chan MY, et al. Attitudes toward fertility preservation in female cancer patients. J Reprod Med. 2010;55(9–10):411–6.
22.
Loh SF, Agarwal R, Chan J, Chia SJ, Cho LW, Lim LH, et al. Academy of medicine-Ministry of Health clinical practice guidelines: assessment and Management of Infertility at primary healthcare level. Singap Med J. 2014;55(2):58–66.
23.
Gerrits T. Assisted reproductive technologies in Ghana: transnational undertakings, local practices and ‘more affordable’ IVF. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016;2:32–8.
24.
25.
26.
Zhang C, Harrison C, Britt H. Infertility Management in Australian general practice. Aust Fam Physician. 2012;41:751.
27.
Macaldowie A, Wang YA, Chambers GM, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2010. In: 55 P, editor. 3 ed. Australia Institute of Health and Welfare; 2012. p. 80.
28.
Tremayne S, Akhondi MM. Conceiving IVF in Iran. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016;2:62–70.
29.
Osei NY. Need for accessible infertility care in Ghana: the patients’ voice. Facts Views Vis ObGyn. 2016;8(2):125–7.
30.
Medical law in Turkey. Alphen aan den Rijn; Biggleswade: Wolters Kluwer Turpin Distribution Services [distributor]; 2011.
31.
Law granting the fetus to infertile couples. 1382. iran Iranian parliament; 2003. p. 1.
32.
33.
Mehta A, Nangia AK, Dupree JM, Smith JF. Limitations and barriers in access to care for male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(5):1128–37.
34.
35.
Access to infertility treatment Commissioning Policy Document. Yorkshire and Humber: NHS Sheffield CCG; 2017-2020. p. 25.
36.
37.
Fitzgerald O, Paul RC, Harris K, Chambers GM. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2016. Sydney NSW 2052 Australia: national perinatal epidemiology & statistics unit, Health CfBDRi; 2018.
38.
CDC Udohahs, Medicine ASfR, Technology SfAR. Assisted reproductive technology National Summary Report. Atlanta (GA): US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2018.
39.
Hamby Y, Smith G, Barron C, Krasner A, Schneider K, Meersman S. The future of infertility prevention project health impact assessment: policy implications and recommendations in light of passage of the patient protection and affordable care act. Colorado: JSI Research & Training Institute, Inc./Denver; 2012.
40.
Nettle H. GP Guidance for Infertility Investigation. In: Group NDCC, editor. 2 ed. UK: NHS; 2018. p. 9.
41.
42.
43.
Australia FSo. Guidelines for professional standards of practice infertility COUNSELLING. Australian & New Zealand: A Sub-committee of the Fertility Society of Australia; 2018. p. 40.
44.
Australia FSo. Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee CERTIFICATION SCHEME; 2016. p. 22.
45.
46.
Mackenbach JP, McKee M. A comparative analysis of health policy performance in 43 European countries. Eur J Pub Health. 2013;23(2):195–201.
47.
48.
Akinloye O, Truter EJ. A review of management of infertility in Nigeria: framing the ethics of a national health policy. Int J Women's Health. 2011;3:265–75.
49.
Nachtigall RD. International disparities in access to infertility services. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(4):871–5.
50.
Toti S. The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States. DigitalEdition3 ed; 2017.
51.
52.
Jones GW, Hamid W. Singapore’s pro-natalist policies: to what extent have they worked? In: Rindfuss RR, Choe MK, editors. Low and lower fertility: variations across developed countries. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 33–61.
53.
Karamouzian M, Sharifi H, Haghdoost AA. Iran's shift in family planning policies: concerns and challenges. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(5):231–3.
54.
Klomp J, de Haan J. Is the political system really related to health? Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(1):36–46.
55.
Kubo H. Epidemiology of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss in society with fewer children. Japan Med Assoc J. 2009;52:23–8.
56.
Inhorn MC, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Tremayne S, Gürtin ZB. Assisted reproduction and Middle East kinship: a regional and religious comparison. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2017;4:41–51.
57.
Yilmaz E, Kavak F. The effect of stigma on depression levels of Turkish women with infertility; 2018.
58.
Hasanpoor-Azghdy SB, Simbar M, Vedadhir A. The social consequences of infertility among Iranian women: a qualitative study. Int J Fertil Steril. 2015;8(4):409–20.
59.
Shariati M, Babazadeh R, Mousavi SA, Najmabadi KM. Iranian adolescent girls’ barriers in accessing sexual and reproductive health information and services: a qualitative study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2014;40(4):270–5.
60.
Bıkmaz FH, Güler DS. An evaluation of health and sexuality education in Turkish elementary school curricula. Sex Educ. 2007;7(3):277–92.
61.
62.
Metadata
Title
Infertility policy analysis: a comparative study of selected lower middle- middle- and high-income countries
Authors
Bahar Morshed-Behbahani
Minoor Lamyian
Hassan Joulaei
Batool Hossein Rashidi
Ali Montazeri
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Globalization and Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1744-8603
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00617-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Globalization and Health 1/2020 Go to the issue

Commentary

Data and cooperation required for Venezuela’s refugee crisis during COVID-19

Research

Beyond the healthy immigrant paradox: decomposing differences in birthweight among immigrants in Spain

Editorial

Globalization and health scholarship in a time of pandemic: from critical past to uncertain future

Research

Using volunteered geographic information to assess mobility in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-city time series analysis of 41 cities in 22 countries from March 2nd to 26th 2020

Research

‘I know those people will be approachable and not mistreat us’: a qualitative study of inspectors and private drug sellers’ views on peer supervision in rural Uganda

Research

Factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia