Korean J Women Health Nurs.  2015 Sep;21(3):171-183. 10.4069/kjwhn.2015.21.3.171.

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

• Hann SK
• Kang HS

• KMID: 2307914
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2015.21.3.171

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.

Keyword

Infertility; Women; Perception; Government programs

MeSH Terms

Family Characteristics*
Female
Focus Groups
Government Programs
Humans
Infertility
Women, Working

Reference

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.