Demographic relevancy of increased use of assisted reproduction in European countries

Jirina Kocourkova, Boris Burcin, Tomas Kucera, Jirina Kocourkova, Boris Burcin, Tomas Kucera

Abstract

Background: Delayed childbearing in European countries has resulted in an increase in the number of women having children later in life. Thus more women face the problem of age-related infertility and cannot achieve their desired number of children. Childbearing postponement is one of the main reasons for the increasing use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and conversely, the latter may be one of the factors contributing to the rise in female childbearing age. The research goal of our article is to evaluate the demographic importance of ART increased use and to examine its impact on both the fertility rate and birth timing.

Methods: Comparative analysis based on demographic and ART data collected by the European IVF-monitoring (EIM) Consortium for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE).

Results: Most countries with a higher total fertility rate (TFR) also registered a higher number of treatment cycles per 1 million women of reproductive age. Despite the positive relationship between the postponement rate and the demand for ART among women aged 35 and older, the highest share of children born after ART was not found in countries characterized by a "delayed" fertility schedule. Instead, the highest proportion of ART births was found in countries with fertility schedules concentrated on women aged between 25 and 34. Accordingly, the effective use of ART can be expected in populations with a less advanced postponement rate.

Conclusions: ART can have a demographic relevancy when women take advantage of it earlier rather than later in life. Furthermore it is suggested that the use of ART at a younger age increases women's chance of achieving their reproductive goals and reduces the risk of age-related infertility and failed ART. Based on a demographic approach, reproductive health policy may become an integral part of policies supporting early childbearing: it may keep women from delaying too long having children and increase the chance of diagnosing potential reproductive health problems requiring a timely ART application.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trends in percentage of ART births between 1997 and 2009 in selected European countries. Data sources: ESHRE, The Czech National ART Register.
Figure 2
Figure 2
European countries by TFR and ART cycles per million women aged 15–49, 1997. Data sources: ESHRE, Eurostat.
Figure 3
Figure 3
European countries by TFR and ART cycles per million women aged 15–45, 2009. Data sources: ESHRE, Eurostat.
Figure 4
Figure 4
European countries by percentage of ART births and fertility postponement index, 2009. a Lesthaeghe & Niedert´s fertility postponement index (FPI) is the ratio of the sum of ASFR above age 29 to the sum of these rates between ages 20 and 29. Data sources: ESHRE, Eurostat, The Czech National ART Register.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Proportion of ASFRs on TFR in%, Denmark, Slovenia, Italy, 2009. Data source: Eurostat.
Figure 6
Figure 6
European countries by percentage of women 35+ treated with IVF/ICSI and fertility postponement index, 2009. a Lesthaeghe & Niedert´s fertility postponement index (FPI) is the ratio of the sum of ASFR above age 29 to the sum of these rates between ages 20 and 29. Data sources: ESHRE, Eurostat.

References

    1. Kohler HP, Billari FC, Ortega JA. The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Popul Dev Rev. 2002;28:641–681. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00641.x.
    1. Frejka T, Sobotka T. Fertility in Europe: diverse, delayed and below replacement. Demographic Res. 2008;19:15–45.
    1. Goldstein JR, Sobotka T, Jasilioniene A. The end of lower-low fertility? Popul Dev Rev. 2009;35:663–700. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00304.x.
    1. Beets G. A contemporary issue in demography: The rising age at first birth, pros and cons. AUC Geographica. 2011;46:5–14.
    1. VID Vienna Institute of Demography, Austrian Academy of Sciences, and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) European Demographic Data Sheet 2012. 2012. Available from .
    1. Hughes EG, Giacomini M. Funding in vitro fertilization treatment for persistent subfertility: the pain and the politics. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:431–442. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01928-8.
    1. Broekmans FJ, Knauff EAH, te Velde ER, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Female reproductive ageing: current knowledge and future trends. Trends in Endocrinol Metabol. 2008;18:58–65.
    1. Leridon H. Can assisted reproduction technology compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? A model assessment. Hum Rep. 2004;19:1549–1554.
    1. Sobotka T, Zeman K, Lesthaeghe R, Frejka T, Neels K. Postponement and Recuperation in Cohort Fertility: Austria, Germany and Switzerland in a European context. Comp Popul Stud. 2011;36:417–452.
    1. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Europe the continent with the lowest fertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:590–602.
    1. Connolly MP, Hoorens S, Chambers GM. on behalf of the ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force. The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:603–613. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq013.
    1. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, Kupka M, Bhattacharya S, de Mouzon J, Castilla JA, Erb K, Korsak V, Andersen AN. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2009: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Rep. 2013;28:2318–2331. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det278.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.029.
    1. Jones HW, Allen BD. Strategies for designing an efficient insurance fertility benefit: a 21st century approach. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2295–2297. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.006.
    1. Schmidt L, Andersen AN. What is a baby-friendly policy? Is everything there? Pharmaceuticals Policy Law. 2007;9:69–76.
    1. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Social determinants of human reproduction. Hum Rep. 2001;16:1518–1526. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.7.1518.
    1. Dawson AA, Diedrich K, Felberbaum RE. Why do couples refuse or discontinue ART? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005;273:3–11. doi: 10.1007/s00404-005-0010-5.
    1. Leridon H, Slama R. The impact of a decline in fecundity and of pregnancy postponement on final number of children and demand for ART. Hum Rep. 2008;23:1312–1319. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den106.
    1. Mills M, Rindfuss RR, McDonald P, te Velde E. on behalf of the ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force. Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:848–860. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr026.
    1. Te Velde E, Habbema D, Leridon H, Eijkemans M. The effect of postponement of first motherhood on permanent involuntary childlessness and total fertility rate in six European countries since the 1970s. Hum Rep. 2012;27:1179–1183. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der455.
    1. Schmidt L, Sobotka T, Bentzen JG, Andersen AN. on behalf of the ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force. Demographic and medical consequences of the postponement of parenthood. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:29–43. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr040.
    1. Nygren KG, Andersen AN. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 1997. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Rep. 2001;16:384–391. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.2.384.
    1. Andersen AN, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Rep. 2006;21:1680–1697.
    1. De Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V, Kupka M, Nygren KG, Andersen AN. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Rep. 2010;25:1851–1862. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq124.
    1. De Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V, Kupka M, Nygren KG, Andersen AN. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2007: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Rep. 2011;26:954–966.
    1. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Korsak V, Kupka M, Nygren KG, Andersen AN. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Rep. 2012;27:2571–2584. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des255.
    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, Sullivan E, Vanderpoel S. on behalf of ICMART and WHO. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Revised Glossary on ART Terminology. Hum Rep. 2009;24:2683–2687. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep343.
    1. Eurostat. Populations and Social Conditions. 2013. Available from .
    1. Nations. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. New York: United Nations, Population Division; 2011.
    1. Lesthaeghe RJ, Neidert L. The Second Demographic Transition in the United States: Exception or Textbook Example? Popul Dev Rev. 2006;32:1–31.
    1. Lesthaeghe RJ, Lopez-Gay A. Spatial continuities and discontinuities in two successive demographic transitions: Spain and Belgium, 1880–2010. Demographic Res. 2013;28:77–136.
    1. Luci A, Thévenon O. Does economic development explain the fertility rebound in OECD countries? Popul Societies. 2010;481:1–4.
    1. Andersen AN, Erb K. Register data on ART in Europe including a detailed description of ART in Denmark. Intern J of Andrology. 2006;29:12–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2005.00577.x.
    1. Ombelet W. Access to assisted reproduction services and infertility treatment in Belgium in the context of the European countries. Pharmaceuticals Policy Law. 2007;9:189–202.
    1. Ochel W, Osterkamp R. Fertility policy in Germany. Pharmaceuticals Policy Law. 2007;9:211–219.
    1. Sobotka T, Skirbekk V, Philipov D. Economic recession and fertility in the developed world. Popul Dev Rev. 2011;37:267–306. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00411.x.
    1. Sunde A. Europe´s declining population and the contribution of ART. Pharmaceuticals Policy Law. 2007;9:79–90.
    1. Grant JC, Hoorens S, Gallo F, Cave JAK. Should ART be part of a population mix? A preliminary assessment of the demographic and economic impact of assisted reproductive technologies. The RAND Corporation; 2006. Available from .
    1. Hoorens S, Gallo F, Cave JAK, Grant JC. Can assisted reproductive technologies help to offset population ageing? An assessment of the demographic and economic impact of ART in Denmark and UK. Hum Rep. 2007;22:2471–2475. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem181.
    1. Sobotka T, Hansen MA, Jensen TK, Pedersen AT, Lutz W, Skakkebaek NE. The contribution of ART to completed fertility: an analysis of Danish data. Popul Dev Rev. 2008;34:79–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2008.00206.x.
    1. Kocourkova J, Fait T. Can increased use of ART retrieve the Czech Republic from the low fertility trap? Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2009;30:111–118.
    1. Ziebe S, Devroey P. on behalf of the State of the ART 2007 Workshop Group. Assisted reproductive technologies are an integrated part of national strategies addressing demographic and reproductive challenges. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:583–592. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmn038.
    1. ESHRE. Comparative Analysis of Medically Assisted Reproduction in the EU:Regulation and Technologies. 2008. SANCO/2008/C6/051.
    1. Kocourkova J, Burcin B. Demografická specifika asistované reprodukce v České republice v evropském kontextu. Demografie. 2012;54:250–263.
    1. Habbema JDF, Eijkemans MJC, Nargund G, Beets G, Leridon H, te Velde ER. The effect of in vitro fertilization on birth rates in western countries. Hum Rep. 2009;24:1414–1419. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep004.
    1. Billari FC, Kohler HP, Andersson G, Lundström H. Approaching the limit: long-term trends in late and very late fertility. Popul Dev Rev. 2007;33:149–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00162.x.
    1. Henne MB, Bundorf MK. Insurance mandates and trends in fertility treatments. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.167.
    1. Schmidt L. Effects of infertility insurance mandates on fertility. J Health Econ. 2007;26:431–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.10.012.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever