What can we learn from a decade of promoting safe embryo transfer practices? A comparative analysis of policies and outcomes in the UK and Australia, 2001-2010

Human Reproduction

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1679-1686

  Chambers, Georgina M ^a   Wang, Yueping A ^a   Chapman, Michael G ^b,c   Hoang, Van Phuong ^a   Sullivan, Elizabeth A ^a   Abdalla, Hossam I ^d   Ledger, William ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b ROYAL HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN   (Australia)

^c ST GEORGE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d LISTER HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

assisted reproductive technology; policy; regulation; single embryo transfer

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA BASE; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SAFETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REGISTER; UNITED KINGDOM; ADULT; MALE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARDS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TRENDS;

ADULT; AUSTRALIA; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT SAFETY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SINGLE EMBRYO TRANSFER; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84878340433     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det080     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Abdalla HI. Are US results for assisted reproduction better than the rest? Is it a question of competence or policies? Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21:624-630.
2. Bissonnette F, Phillips S, Gunby J, Holzer H, Mahutte N, St-Michel P, Kadoch IJ. Working to eliminate multiple pregnancies: a success story in Quebec. Reprod Biomed Online 2011. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo, 2011.05.020.
3. Bitler M, Schmidt L. Health disparities and infertility: impacts of state-level insurance mandates. Fertil Steril 2006;85:858-865.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and Society of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART). 2009 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Atlanta, USA: Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2011.
5. Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, Ishihara O, Chapman MG, Adamson GD. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2281-2294.
6. Chambers GM, Illingworth PJ, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproductive technology: public funding and the voluntary shift to single embryo transfer in Australia. Med J Aust 2011;195:594-598.
7. Chambers G, Hoang V, Zhu R, Illingworth P. A reduction in public funding for fertility treatment-an econometric analysis of access to treatment and savings to government. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:142.
8. Connolly MP, Griesinger G, Ledger W, Postma MJ. The impact of introducing patient co-payments in Germany on the use of IVF and ICSI: a price-elasticity of demand assessment. Hum Reprod 2009; 24:2796-2800.
9. Department of Health. Primary care trust survey: provision of IVF in England 2007. 2009. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsand statistics/ Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH-101073 (March 2013, date last accessed).
10. Elster N. Less is more: the risks of multiple births. The Institute for Science, Law, and Technology Working Group on Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril 2000;74:617-623.
11. ESHRE. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Multiple gestation pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1856-1864.
12. Farquhar CM, Wang YA, Sullivan EA. A comparative analysis of assisted reproductive technology cycles in Australia and New Zealand 2004-2007. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2281-2289.
13. Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Brosens I, Valkenburg M, Norre J, Renier M, Coeman D, Gordts S. Belgian legislation and the effect of elective single embryo transfer on IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10:436-441.
14. Griffin D, Brown L, Feinn R, Jacob MC, Scranton V, Egan J, Nulsen J. Impact of an educational intervention and insurance coverage on patients' preferences to transfer multiple embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;25:204-208.
15. Hamilton BH, McManus B. The effects of insurance mandates on choices and outcomes in infertility treatment markets. Health Econ 2012; 21:994-1016.
16. Heijnen EMEW, Eijkemans MJC, De Klerk C, Polinder S, Beckers NGM, Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Passchier J, Te Velde ER, Macklon NS et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2007;369:743-749.
17. Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DAM, Donker D, Keirse MJNC. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. Br Med J 2004;328:261.
18. Henne MB, Bundorf MK. Insurance mandates and trends in infertility treatments. Fertil Steril 2008;89:66-73.
19. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Multiple births and single embryo transfer review. 2007. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/Multiple-births- after-IVF.html (August 2012, date last accessed).
20. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Multiple Birth Implementation Plan. Authority Paper No: HFEA (20/02/08) 426. 2008 http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/AM-Item-5-Feb08.pdf (February 2013, date last accessed).
21. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). HFEA policy on multiple births. 2009. http://www.oneatatime.org.uk/459.htm (December 2012, date last accessed).
22. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Latest UK fertility treatment data and figures: 2009-2010. HFEA, Finsbury Tower, London 2012a. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/104.html (November 2012, date last accessed).
23. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). HFEA meeting June 13 2012 London, multiple births update. Paper Number: HFEA (13/06/2012) 641, 2012b.
24. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Online data. Anonymised register data. The date was extracted from the HFEA's data warehouse containing Registry data provided by licensed centres as at 11/12/2012. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/5874.html (date last accessed, March 2013).
25. ICMART. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART), preliminary global ART data for 2008. In: European Society of Human Embryology and Reproduction (ESHRE) Annual Scientific Meeting Rome, Istanbul, Turkey 1-4 July 2012.
26. Jain T, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD. Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2002;347:661-666.
27. Kutlu P, Atvar O, Vanlioglu O, Kutlu U, Arici A, Yilmaz S, Yilmaz E, Delikara N, Bener F, Kamar A et al. Effect of the new legislation and single-embryo transfer policy in Turkey on assisted reproduction outcomes: preliminary results. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22:208-214.
28. Ledger WL, Anumba D, Marlow N, Thomas CM, Wilson EC, Cost of Multiple Births Study G. The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. BJOG 2006;113:21-25.
29. Lukassen HG, Braat DD, Wetzels AM, Zielhuis GA, Adang EM, Scheenjes E, Kremer JA. Two cycles with single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005;20:702-708.
30. Macaldowie A, Wang YA, Chambers GM, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproduction technology in Australia and New Zealand 2010. Assisted Reproduction Technology Series No. 16. Cat. No. PER 55. Canberra: AIHW, 2012.
31. Martin JR, Bromer JG, Sakkas D, Patrizio P. Insurance coverage and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a U.S. perspective. Fertil Steril 2011;95: 964-969.
32. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Clinical Guideline 11, fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems, commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/CG011.
33. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Fertility: assessment and management (update), commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2012. Available at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG156.
34. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Research involving human embryos act 2002. 2002. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/ hc38.
35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Society at a glance 2011: OECD social indicators. 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc- glance-2011-en.
36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). SourceOECD, OECD health data 2008-version June 2008. Online database. http://www.oecd.org/health. (July 2012, date last accessed).
37. One at a Time. Report of the expert group on multiple births after IVF. 2006. http://www.oneatatime.org.uk/images/MBSET-report-Final-Dec-06.pdf.
38. One at a Time. Multiple births from fertility treatment in the UK: a consensus statement. 2011. http://www.oneatatime.org.uk/images/2011-05-Multiple- Births-Consensus-Statement--FINAL.pdf.
39. Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee (RTAC) of the Fertility Society of Australia (FSA). Code of practice. 2005. http://www.fertilitysociety. com.au/rtac/(July 2011, date last accessed).
40. Staniec JFO, Webb NJ. Utilization of infertility services: how much does money matter? Health Serv Res 2007;42:971-989.
41. Stillman RJ, Richter KS, Banks NK, Graham JR. Elective single embryo transfer: A 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1895-1906.
42. Wang YA, Macaldowie A, Hayward I, Chambers GM, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2009. Assisted Reproduction Technology Series No. 15. Cat. No. PER 51. Canberra: AIHW, 2011.