4.7 Article

Assisted reproduction policies in Israel: a retrospective analysis of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 102, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.740

Keywords

Assisted reproductive technologies; IVF; health policy; health care allocation; culture of perseverance

Funding

  1. Israel National Institute for Policy Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To analyze whether the results and effectiveness of the open-ended treatment with IVF in Israel justifies the policy of limitless nondonor IVF rounds. Design: The research sample included 535 patients. The files of these patients were reviewed; data were extracted into a questionnaire, transferred into digital files, and analyzed with SPSS. Setting: IVF clinics. Patient(s): Two hundred ten women who began IVF treatment in 2000 and 325 women who were in IVF treatment during 2010. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Retrospective analysis of the success rates of live births resulting from cycles with IVF in women who started treatment in 2000, retrospective analysis of IVF results during 2010, and number of cycles in women who were in IVF treatment during 2010. Result(s): In the 2000 cohort, the rate of success with IVF was 54%. The success rate fell as the number of unsuccessful cycles and duration of infertility increased; age at the beginning of the treatment was influential. A similar pattern appeared in the group that was in treatment during 2010. The rate of success in the group that was in IVF treatment during 2010 was 16.6%; of the women in this group (2010, ongoing), 25% had already undergone more than five cycles and 12% of the women had already undergone more than seven cycles. Conclusion(s): Although limited in scope, this study suggests that the policy of limitless nondonor IVF-ET cycles in Israel should be further examined and assessed. (C) 2014 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available