Exploring fertility treatment add-on use, information transparency and costs in the UK: Insights from a patient survey

This study presents the findings from a UK-based survey exploring fertility treatment add-ons, treatment costs, and information transparency. The online survey, distributed via social media, targeted current and prospective IVF patients, yielding 304 eligible responses. Results indicate an increase in the use of fertility treatment add-ons compared to previous data. Respondents primarily relied on multiple sources for information about these add-ons, with search engines being the most frequently used, followed by fertility clinic websites, the HFEA website, and medical or scientific articles. These sources were also deemed the most reliable. In contrast, social media, online forums, and blogs were less frequently used and rated as less reliable. Respondents reported significant variation in the total cost per cycle of privately funded treatment, ranging from £5,000 to £13,000, with an average of £11,950. Although there was a slight upward trend in costs with rising household income, no strong correlation was observed. Fertility clinic websites were the primary source of cost-related information, with 99% of respondents emphasising the importance of clinics providing accurate and up-to-date information on their websites. The findings also reveal respondents' views on potential policy actions to improve transparency around information and costs in the fertility sector.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Human Fertility
Published
2025-03-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2025.2469533
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Reproductive Health and Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.09
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exploring fertility treatment add-on use, information transparency and costs in the UK: Insights from a patient survey

Manuela Perrotta, Jack Dale Wilkinson, Miracle Ayomikun Adesina, Marcin Smietana
3 citations
Human Fertility
Reproductive Health and Technologies
5.09
article

Exploring fertility treatment add-on use, information transparency and costs in the UK: Insights from a patient survey

Manuela Perrotta, Jack Dale Wilkinson, Miracle Ayomikun Adesina, Marcin Smietana
article en
3 citations

Abstract

This study presents the findings from a UK-based survey exploring fertility treatment add-ons, treatment costs, and information transparency. The online survey, distributed via social media, targeted current and prospective IVF patients, yielding 304 eligible responses. Results indicate an increase in the use of fertility treatment add-ons compared to previous data. Respondents primarily relied on multiple sources for information about these add-ons, with search engines being the most frequently used, followed by fertility clinic websites, the HFEA website, and medical or scientific articles. These sources were also deemed the most reliable. In contrast, social media, online forums, and blogs were less frequently used and rated as less reliable. Respondents reported significant variation in the total cost per cycle of privately funded treatment, ranging from £5,000 to £13,000, with an average of £11,950. Although there was a slight upward trend in costs with rising household income, no strong correlation was observed. Fertility clinic websites were the primary source of cost-related information, with 99% of respondents emphasising the importance of clinics providing accurate and up-to-date information on their websites. The findings also reveal respondents' views on potential policy actions to improve transparency around information and costs in the fertility sector.

Human FertilityVol. 28(1)
Ca' Foscari University of Venice (IT), Queen Mary University of London (GB), Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB), University of Manchester (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Reproductive Health and Technologies
5.09
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.