Education on Assisted Reproductive Technology Program with Low Cost

Uki Retno Budihastuti, Abdurahman Laqif, Eriana Melinawati, Teguh Prakosa, Hermawan Udiyanto, Heru Priyanto, Darto ., Affi Angelia Ratnasari, Asih Anggraeni, Agung Sari Wijayanti


Background: Assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs have proven to be a solution to help infertility couples to conceive. However, most couples face a financial crisis related to the relatively expensive cost of ART treatment. This service aims to educate about ART's meaning, direction, and procedures. Thus, couples want children to be able to understand the ART program at an affordable cost (low-cost) and undergo the ART program without any concerns about costs.

Method: Seminar participants be given socialization in person and online through zoom software by the service provider. It is in two stages, in-person and online, so participants who cannot attend in person can follow this service program. In addition, participants are given a pre-test and post-test questions to assess their understanding of the ART program at an affordable cost.

Result: The pre-test and post-test results were analyzed using Wilcoxon, which showed that after providing education about the ART program, the post-test results were significantly better than the pre-test results. Down value: 5.5%, fixed value: 15.2%, value rise: 79.3% with significance p<0.001.

Conclusion: There are significant differences in the pre-test and post-test scores, which means that the participants understood the explanation the servicer gave.


Assisted Reproductive Technology; Education; Low Cost

Full Text:



  1. René C, Landry I, de Montigny F. Couples’ Experiences of Pregnancy Resulting from Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Qualitative Meta-synthesis. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2022;4(100059):1–17.
  2. Agarwal A, Mulgund A, Hamada A, Chyatte MR. A unique view on male infertility around the globe. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13(1):1–9.
  3. Crawford NM, Steiner AZ. Age-related infertility. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015;42(1):15–25.
  4. Hasanbeygi F, Zandi M, Vanaki Z, Kazemnejad A. Investigating the problems and needs of infertile patients referring to assisted reproduction centers: A review study. Evid Based Care J. 2017;7(3):54–70.
  5. Szalma I, Bitó T. Knowledge and attitudes about assisted reproductive technology: Findings from a Hungarian online survey. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2021;13:75–84.
  6. Luke B. Pregnancy and birth outcomes in couples with infertility with and without assisted reproductive technology: with an emphasis on US population-based studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):270–81.
  7. Xiao Y, Jiang L, Tong Y, Luo X, He J, Liu L, et al. Evaluation of the quality of guidelines for assisted reproductive technology using the RIGHT checklist: A cross-sectional study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;241:42–8.
  8. Hamidi F, Babapour F, Hamzehgardeshi Z. Infertility distress management in couples treated with assisted reproductive techniques (ART) in COVID-19 pandemic. J Reprod Infertil. 2020;21(4):312–3.
  9. Alviggi C, Esteves SC, Orvieto R, Conforti A, La Marca A, Fischer R, et al. COVID-19 and assisted reproductive technology services: Repercussions for patients and proposal for individualized clinical management. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18(1):1–7.
  10. 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(6):2281–94.
  11. Danielle X. Morales, Sara E. Grineski and TWC. Costs of achieving live birth from assisted reproductive technology: a comparison of sequential single and double embryo transfer approaches. Physiol Behav. 2016;176(1):139–48.
  12. Millar JA, Dao HDN, Stefopulos ME, Estevam CG, Fagan-Garcia K, Taft DH, et al. Risk factors for increased COVID-19 case-fatality in the United States: A county-level analysis during the first wave. PLoS One. 2021;16(10 October):1–16.
  13. COVID-19 STP. Peta Sebaran COVID-19. 2022.
  14. Esposito V, Rania E, Lico D, Pedri S, Fiorenza A, Strati MF, et al. Influence of COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological status of infertile couples. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;253:148–53.
  15. Cullen W, Gulati G, Kelly BD. Immediate Psychological Responses and Associated Factors during the Initial Stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the General Population in China. Int J Environ Res Public Heal. 2020;17(1729):1–25.
  16. Ayu IM, Situngkir D, Nitami M, Nadiyah. Program Peningkatan Pengetahuan Kesehatan Reproduksi Remaja Di SMK “X” Tangerang Raya. J Kreat Pengabdi Kpd Masy. 2020;3(3):87–95.
  17. Amalia R, Siswantara P. Efektivitas Penyuluhan Kesehatan Reproduksi pada Calon Pengantin di Puskesmas Pucang Sewu Surabaya. Vol. 7, Jurnal Biometrika dan Kependudukan. 2018. p. 29.
  18. Chambers GM, Adamson GD, Eijkemans MJC. Acceptable cost for the patient and society. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):319–27.
  19. Akorede Yusuff AO. Assisted reproductive technology. Comp Heal Law Policy Crit Perspect Niger Glob Heal Law. 2015;(July 2014):237–66.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2023 PLACENTUM: Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan dan Aplikasinya

View My Stats

Lisensi Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike International 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0).