Infertile Women's Perception on the National Support Program for Infertile Couples

Soo Kyoung Hann; Hee Sun Kang

doi:10.4069/kjwhn.2015.21.3.171

Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.21(3) > 1089506

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Hann and Kang: Infertile Women's Perception on the National Support Program for Infertile Couples

Original Article

Korean J Women Health Nurs 2015;21(3):171-183.

Published online: 17 September 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2015.21.3.171

Infertile Women's Perception on the National Support Program for Infertile Couples

Soo Kyoung Hann, Hee Sun Kang

Red Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Kang, Hee Sun Red Cross College of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 156-756, Korea. Tel: +82-2-820-5699, Fax: +82-2-824-7961, E-mail: goodcare@cau.ac.kr

Received 22 April 201515 June 2015 Accepted 22 July 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the perception of infertile women on the use of the national support program that provides medical expense aid to infertile couples.

Methods

Thirty Korean infertile women participated in five focus groups. Data were collected from January to August 2014. After obtaining permission from the participants, each session of the focus group was audio-taped and transcribed. The responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

The main themes identified from the sessions with the participants were “feeling thankful for the reliable support program,” “feeling happy or unhappy,” “enduring inconveniences,” and “hoping for a more comprehensive support service.” Although most of the participants perceived the benefits of the national support service positively, they stated that the service was not comprehensive because it did not cover all the medical expenses for tests and other medical treatments.

Conclusion

The benefits given to infertile couples by the program should be increased by covering all the medical expenses, expanding its criteria to include more eligible candidates, and by including special leave benefits for working women. Furthermore, it is essential to take measures for infertility prevention at the individual and national policy levels.

Keywords: Infertility, Women, Perception, Government programs

REFERENCES

1. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. Press release for increase in infertile couples [Internet]. Seoul: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service;2015. [cited 2011 October 18]. Available from:. http://www.hira.or.kr/dummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA020041000000&cmsurl=/cms/notice/02/1208237_24959.

2. Hwang NM. Physical, psychological and social-economic burden and demands of infertile women. Health·Welfare Issue & Focus. 2011; 74:1–8.

3. Seo K. Reproductive health. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science. 2009; 52(4):387–390.

4. Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. Public funding for assisted reproductive technology for infertile couples [Internet]. Seoul: Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs;2015. [cited 2015 January 20]. Available from:. http://www.korea.go.kr/service/serviceInfoView.do?svcSeq=9054&rnum=9&searchType=0&ctyCode=060000&Mcode=1107.

5. Lim J, Lee JH. Direction and support level of the fertility welfare policy in South Korea. Journal of Population Ageing. 2014; 7(2):115–141.

6. Berg Brigham K, Cadier B, Chevreul K. The diversity of regulation and public financing of IVF in Europe and its impact on utilization. Human Reproduction. 2013; 28(3):666–675.

7. Dunn AL, Stafinski T, Menon D. An international survey of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) policies and the effects of these policies on costs, utilization, and health outcomes. Health Policy. 2014; 116(2-3):238–263.

8. Cook JL, Collins J, Buckett W, Racowsky C, Hughes E, Jarvi K. Assisted reproductive technology-related multiple births: Canada in an international context. Journal of Obstetrics Gynaecology Canada. 2011; 33(2):159–167.

9. Cabello Y, Gómez-Palomares JL, Castilla JA, Hernández J, Marqueta J, Pareja A, et al. Impact of the Spanish fertility society guidelines on the number of embryos to transfer. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2010; 21(5):667–675.

10. Chambers GM, Illingworth PJ, Sullivan EA. Assisted reproductive technology: Public funding and the voluntary shift to single embryo transfer in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia. 2011; 195(10):594–598.

11. Tulandi T, King L, Zelkowitz P. Public funding of and access to in vitro fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013; 368(20):1948–1949.

12. Yoo GS. The effects of fertility policies on childbirth in 2007. Journal of Family Relations. 2009; 14(1):169–189.

13. Hwang NM, Hwang JH, Kim JE. Evaluation of the national supporting program for infertility couples and future policy directions in Korea. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs;2010.

14. Hwang JH, Min EG. Public funding for assisted reproductive technology. Korean Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2009; 36(4):237–247.

15. Kim GR. The evaluation and prospect of infertile couple support policy- Focused on women's rights to childbirth and rights to health. Journal of Regional Studies. 2012; 20(2):181–200.

16. Hwang NM, Shin HW, Jang IS, Park JS, Kim HN. Reimbursement system of intrauterine insemination treatment and future policy directions in Korea. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs;2012.

17. Ha JO. Reproductive rights: Placing the concept in a historical and political context. Health and Social Science. 2013; 34:183–210.

18. Kang HS, Kim MJ. Experiences of infertile women in unsuccessful In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2004; 10(2):119–127.

19. Kim YS. A phenomenological study on the adoption experience of infertile women [dissertation]. Seoul: Kukje Theological University and Seminary;2011.

20. Lee YJ. An ethnography on infertile women's grief in Korea [dissertation]. Seoul: Kyung Hee University;2008.

21. Lee YJ, Kim KB. Lived experience of IVF-ET program. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2009; 15(1):43–53.

22. Han HS. A study on Korean women infertility experiencing: Ground theory approach [dissertation]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University;2002.

23. Kang HS, Son YD. Experience of Korean pregnant women for the use of medical expense aid service (KoEnMom Card). Journal of Korean Society Maternal and Child Health. 2011; 15(2):175–185.

24. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health. 2000; 23(4):334–340.

25. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;2009.

26. Lincolon YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications;1985.

27. Maeda E, Ishihara O, Saito H, Kuwahara A, Toyokawa S, Kobayashi Y. Age-specific cost and public funding of a live birth following assisted reproductive treatment in Japan. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2014; 40(5):1338–1344.

28. Dolan P, Rudisill C. Babies in waiting: Why increasing the IVF age cutoff might lead to fewer wanted pregnancies in the presence of procrastination. Health Policy. 2015; 119(2):174–179.

29. Hodgetts K, Hiller JE, Street JM, Carter D, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Watt AM, et al. Disinvestment policy and the public funding of assisted reproductive technologies: Outcomes of deliberative engagements with three key stakeholder groups. BMC Health Services Research. 2014; 14:204.

30. Seo IP. Extension of public funding for assisted reproductive technology for infertile couples in Yang Pyoung. KyeongIn Newspaper. 2014 August 19; Sect. 20.

Table 1.

General and Infertile Characteristics (N=30)

Characteristics	Categories	n(%)
Age (yr)	30~35	13 (43.3)
	36~40	7 (23.3)
	41~44	8 (26.7)
	≥45	2 (6.7)
Status of marriage	Married	28 (93.3)
	Remarried	2 (6.7)
Education	≤High school	4 (13.3)
	≥College	15 (50.0)
	≥Master degree	11 (36.7)
Job	Yes	16 (53.3)
	No	14 (46.7)
Economic status	Middle and higher	27 (90.0)
	Lower	3 (10.0)
Having religion	Yes	21 (70.0)
	No	9 (30.0)
Number of IUI cycles	0	22 (73.3)
attempted	1	4 (13.3)
	≥3	4 (13.3)
Number of IVF cycles	≤3	19 (63.3)
attempted	≥4	4 (13.3)
	≥10	7 (23.3)
Pregnancy history	No	13 (43.3)
	Yes	17 (56.7)
Having children	No	23 (76.7)
	Yes	7 (23.3)
Cause of infertility	Female	21 (70.0)
	Male	4 (13.3)
	Idiopathic	5 (16.7)
Frequency of	1	7 (23.3)
government support	2	8 (26.7)
for infertility couple	3	5 (16.7)
	4	9 (30.0)
	5	1 (3.3)

IUI=Intrauterine insemination; IVF=In vitro fertilization.

Table 2.

Main Themes and Sub-themes Identified from Focus Group Interviews

Theme	Sub-theme	Content
Feeling thankful	Thankful for being	․ Fortunate to be qualified for subsidies for fertility treatment.
for the support	selected and	․ Thankful to be a beneficiary of the subsidies.
program	empowered	․ Now, I am able to start a fertility treatment because half of the costs are
		covered.
	Thankful because the	․ I became a mother of ○○ (baby name) because of this financial
	program helped me	support program. Thinking back, I am very grateful.
	to be a mother	․ I will be a patriot if this program helps me to have a second baby.
Feeling happy or	Strict selection criteria	․ It is disappointing to learn I am not eligible the benefits only because
unhappy		my income is above the limit. I work because I need to pay for medical
		expenses. It is unfair to be excluded from the benefits because I make
		a little more money than others.
	Service without	․ The total cost for infertility treatment per cycle varies depending on
	differences	the cause of infertility and treatment a woman needs. It will be helpful
		if women can use the budget across the 4 attempts without an upper
		limit per cycle, especially for couples like us, who incur extra costs than
		average couples because of genetic testing (preimplantation genetic
		diagnosis) and treatments.
Enduring	Cumbersome	․ The application process is cumbersome because I have to visit the
inconveniences	application process	community health center to apply for the program.
		․ Working women may need to take a day off to visit the center.
		An online or phone-based application process will be helpful.
	Differences in	․ Differences between the claim processes for In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
	claim process	and artificial insemination in the financial assistance system are confusing.
		In case of artificial insemination, the money is refunded through the
		banking system after submitting papers to a community health center
		posttreatment. On the other hand, I don't have to do anything in case of
		IVF because the hospital takes care of everything.
Hoping for a more	Need more benefit	․ Since last year, the program coverage for IVF has increased to
comprehensive	coverage	․ 4thattempts. Therefore, I mustered courage to give it another try. It seems
support service		that the program coverage is improving. It could get even better, I guess.
	Need more	․ I am a professional woman and I have worked to gain recognition.
	consideration for	However working and getting infertility treatment is a double whammy
	working women	for me.
		․ I need a provision for working women to take some time off for the
		infertility treatment when needed.
	Need new name	․ Rename the service to sound pleasant and friendly such as "Koeun mom
	reflecting a positive	card" and to reflect hope, for example, "Wish-for-a-child card" or
	image and hope	"Want-a-childcard"

TOOLS

Similar articles