MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150113577 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deu067

Universal coverage of IVF pays off

2014· article· en· W2150113577 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maria P. Vélez, Mark P. Connolly, Isaac Jacques Kadoch, S. Phillips, F. Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: What was the clinical and economic impact of universal coverage of IVF in Quebec, Canada, during the first calendar year of implementation of the public IVF programme? SUMMARY ANSWER: Universal coverage of IVF increased access to IVF treatment, decreased the multiple pregnancy rate and decreased the cost per live birth, despite increased costs per cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Public funding of IVF assures equality of access to IVF and decreases multiple pregnancies resulting from this treatment. Public IVF programmes usually mandate a predominant SET policy, the most effective approach for reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective comparative cohort study involved 7364 IVF cycles performed in Quebec during 2009 and 2011 and included an economic analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: IVF cycles performed in the five centres offering IVF treatment in Quebec during 2009, before implementation of the public IVF programme, were compared with cycles performed at the same centres during 2011, the first full calendar year following implementation of the programme. Data were obtained from the Canadian Assisted Reproductive Technologies Register (CARTR). Comparisons were made between the two periods in terms of utilization, pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates and costs. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The number of IVF cycles performed in Quebec increased by 192% after the new policy was implemented. Elective single-embryo transfer was performed in 1.6% of the cycles during Period I (2009), and increased to 31.6% during Period II (2011) (P < 0.001). Although the clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer was lower in 2011 than in 2009 (24.9 versus 39.9%, P < 0.001), the multiple pregnancy rate was greatly reduced (6.4 versus 29.4%, P < 0.001). The public IVF programme increased government costs per IVF treatment cycle from CAD$3730 to CAD$4759. Despite increased costs per cycle, the efficiency defined by the cost per live birth, which factored in downstream health costs up to 1 year post delivery, decreased from CAD$49 517 to CAD$43 362 per baby conceived by either fresh and frozen cycles. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The costs described in the economic model are likely an underestimate as they do not factor in many of the long-term costs that can occur after 1 year of age. The information collected in the Canadian ART register precludes the calculation of cumulative pregnancy rates. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study confirms that the implementation of a public IVF programme favouring eSET not only sharply decreases the incidence of multiple pregnancy, but also reduces the cost per live birth. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): M.P.V. holds a fellowship award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The economic analysis performed by M.P.C. was supported by an unrestricted grant from Ferring Pharmaceutical.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207