Development of clinical priority access criteria for assisted reproduction and its evaluation on 1386 infertile couples in New Zealand
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In New Zealand ranking patients for elective, publicly funded procedures uses clinical priority access criteria (CPAC). A CPAC to prioritize patients seeking assisted reproductive technology (ART) was developed in 1997 and implemented nationwide in 2000. This study describes the development of the ART CPAC tool and its evaluation on 1386 couples referred to a single tertiary service from 1998 to 2005. METHODS: A total of 48 health professionals and consumers assisted in criteria development. A score between 0 and 100 points was calculated for each couple and those who reached ≥65 points were eligible for publicly funded ART. Couples beneath the treatment threshold were placed on active review; the review being the date the score was calculated to reach the treatment threshold. Couples who would never be eligible or who were on active review were offered private treatment. Treatments and outcomes (spontaneous and treatment dependent live birth pregnancies) were used to evaluate the criteria. RESULTS: Three social criteria (duration infertility, number of children and sterilization status) and two objective criteria (diagnosis and female age) formed the priority score. Of the evaluated couples, 643 (46%) were eligible within 1 year of referral (Group 1), 451 (33%) >1-5 years from referral (Group 2) and 292 (21%) couples were never eligible (Group 3). The predominant ART was IVF. A total of 480 couples had at least one IVF treatment with 404 (84%) having publicly funded treatment. A total of 762 (55%) women gave birth, 473 from treatment and 289 spontaneously. Group 1 had more pregnancies from treatment while Group 2 had most pregnancies overall being mainly from spontaneous pregnancies. Compared with Group 3 cases the hazard ratio using time to spontaneous live birth pregnancy for Group 1 couples was significantly lower, 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.36-0.74) and for Group 2 cases significantly higher, 1.86, (1.35-2.58). Treatments using ART were evaluated for the three eligibility groups, with the never eligible divided into women age <40 (Group 3a) and woman age ≥40 at referral (Group 3b). Compared with Group 1 cases the hazard ratio to treatment dependent live birth pregnancy was similar for Groups 2 and 3a but significantly lower for Group 3b (0.37, 0.14-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical priority access score was able to discriminate between the chance of pregnancy with and without treatment and those offered and not offered treatment. The CPAC is a useful model for informing the allocation of public funding for ART in other countries.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».