SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN MOLDOVA: A SOCIALLY DIFFERENTIATED PERSPECTIVE

Inga Chistruga-Sânchevici

doi:10.36004/nier.es.2025.2-07

Authors

Inga Chistruga-Sânchevici PhD in sociology, National Institute of Economic Research, Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3241-9864

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36004/nier.es.2025.2-07

Keywords:

ART, social acceptance, social attitudes, fertility, reproductive health

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) offer an important medical intervention for couples experiencing difficulties conceiving. This study examines the level of social acceptance of ART in Moldova and identifies key socio-demographic, economic, and cultural factors shaping public attitudes toward its use. The analysis is based on data from a quantitative exploratory study conducted between August and September 2025, using a self-administered online questionnaire completed by 375 respondents aged 20 to 50. Acceptance of ART is analysed across three contexts: personal use, use in cases of partner infertility, and willingness to encourage others to access such technologies. The findings indicate that acceptance is generally high but socially differentiated. Education, income, and place of residence are the strongest correlates of acceptance, whereas age, religiosity, and parental status exert more moderate effects. These disparities point to persistent social inequalities in attitudes toward ART and underscore the need for public policies to reduce barriers to access. At the same time, the results suggest that ART are perceived not only as medical interventions but also as instruments of broader reproductive modernisation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adamson, G. D. (2009). Global cultural and socioeconomic factors that influence access to ART. Women’s Health, 5(4), 351-358. https://doi.org/10.2217/whe.09.28

Adamson, G. D., Armstrong, H., Cheong, Y., Damato, E., Fatemi, H., Ferriani, R., Griesinger, G., Ledger, W. L., Pistollato, M., Pellicer, A., Petrova, A., Rombauts, L., Wilsdon, T., & Ziebe, S. (2025). Policy solutions to improve access to fertility treatment and optimise patient care: consensus from an expert forum. Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 7, 1605480. https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2025.1605480

Aderaldo, J. F., Rodrigues de Albuquerque, B. H. D., Câmara de Oliveira, M. T. F., de Medeiros Garcia Torres, M., & Lanza, D. C. F. (2023). Main topics in assisted reproductive market: A scoping review. PloS One, 18(8), e0284099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284099

Bögl, S., Moshfegh, J., Persson, P., & Polyakova, M. (2024). The economics of infertility: Evidence from reproductive medicine. Working Paper 32445. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w32445

Chambers, G. M., Sullivan, E. A., Ishihara, O., Chapman, M. G., & Adamson, G. D. (2009). The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertility Sterility, 91(6), 2281-2294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.029

Chambers, G. M., Hoang, V. P., & Illingworth, P. J. (2013). Socioeconomic disparities in access to ART treatment and the differential impact of a policy that increased consumer costs. Human Reproduction, 28(11), 3111-3117. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det302

Fauser, B. C. J. M., Boivin, J., Barri, P. N., Tarlatzis, B. C., Schmidt, L., & Levy-Toledano, R. (2019). Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: Public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries. PloS One, 14(1), e0211150. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211150

Fortin, C., & Abele, S. (2016). Increased Length of Awareness of ART Fosters Positive Attitudes and Acceptance among Women. International Journal of Fertility & Sterility, 9(4), 452-464. https://doi.org/10.22074/ijfs.2015.4603

Fotovati, M., Badeghiesh, A. M., Baghlaf, H. A., & Dahan, M. H. (2024). The relationship between socioeconomic status and perinatal outcomes in in vitro fertilization conceptions. AJOG global reports, 4(2), 100329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100329

Goisis, A., Håberg, S. E., Hanevik, H. I, Magnus, M. C., Kravdal, Ø. (2020) The demographics of assisted reproductive technology births in a Nordic country. Human Reproduction, 35(6), 1441-1450. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa055

Goisis, A., Fallesen, P., Seiz, M., Salazar, L., Eremenko, T., & Cozzani, M. (2024). Educational gradients in the prevalence of medically assisted reproduction births in a comparative perspective. Fertility Sterility, 122(4), 648-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.05.149

Hu, L., Yuan, Y., Li, Y., Cai, M., Yin, J., & Zhu, L. (2025). Prevalence and risk factors of negative emotions in infertile women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1701381. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1701381

Imrie, R., Ghosh, S., Narvekar, N., Vigneswaran, K., Wang, Y., & Savvas, M. (2023). Socioeconomic status and fertility treatment outcomes in high-income countries: a review of the current literature. Human Fertility, 26(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2021.1957503

Issanov, A., Aimagambetova, G., Terzic, S., Bapayeva, G., Ukybassova, T., Baikoshkarova, S., Utepova, G., Daribay, Z., Bekbossinova, G., Balykov, A., Aldiyarova, A., & Terzic, M. (2022). Impact of governmental support to the IVF clinical pregnancy rates: differences between public and private clinical settings in Kazakhstan-a prospective cohort study. BMJ open, 12(2), e049388. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049388

Kocourkova, J., Burcin, B., & Kucera, T. (2014). Demographic relevancy of increased use of assisted reproduction in European countries. Reproductive Health, 11(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-11-37

Kocourková, J., Šťastná, A., & Burcin, B. (2023). The influence of the increasing use of assisted reproduction technologies on the recent growth in fertility in Czechia. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 10854. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37071-7

Mackay, A., Taylor, S., & Glass, B. (2023). Inequity of Access: Scoping the Barriers to ART. Pharmacy, 11(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy11010017

Passet-Wittig, J., Greil, A. L., McQuillan, J., & Bujard, M. (2025). Social Disparities Across Different Stages of Medical Help-Seeking to Have a Child in Germany. Social Inclusion, 13, 10420. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.10420

Präg, P., & Mills, M. C. (2017). Cultural determinants influence assisted reproduction usage in Europe more than economic and demographic factors. Human Reproduction, 32(11), 2305-2314. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex298

Rosenberg, R., Bietsch, K., Sonneveldt, E. (2022). Infertility in Moldova: evidence from the generations and gender survey. Economy and Sociology, 2, 34-51. https://doi.org/10.36004/nier.es.2022.2-03

Skedgel, C., Ralphs, E., Finn, E., Whitty, J. A., Markert, M., & Samuelsen, C. (2021). Is the public supportive and willing to pay for a national assistive reproductive therapies programme? Results from a multicountry survey. BMJ open, 11(3), e044986. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044986

Szalma, I., & Bitó, T. (2021). Knowledge and attitudes about assisted reproductive technology: Findings from a Hungarian online survey. Reproductive BioMedicine & Society Online, 13, 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2021.06.005

World Health Organization. (2023). Infertility prevalence estimates, 1990-2021. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/a22ced65-46b1-4482-bf85-058719fec649/content