Blurring the divide: Navigating the public/private landscape of fertility treatment in the UK.

It is widely assumed that fertility patients in the UK are either privately funded or publicly funded through the National Health Service. This article challenges this distinction and demonstrates how the boundaries between public and private fertility treatment provision are increasingly blurred. It draws on interviews with 42 fertility patients and partners who had accessed in vitro fertilisation (IVF) through both the National Health Service and private providers, to demonstrate how participants were compelled to engage with a consumerist model of healthcare, even when they had access to publicly funded IVF cycles.

Patient informed choice in the age of evidence-based medicine: IVF patients' approaches to biomedical evidence and fertility treatment add-ons.

With the increasing offer of fertility treatment by a largely privatised sector, which has involved the proliferation of treatment add-ons lacking evidence of effectiveness, In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) patients are expected to make informed choices on what to include in their treatment. Drawing on interviews with 51 individuals undergoing fertility treatment, this article explores patients' approaches to medical evidence interpretation and its role in their decisions to include add-ons. While most IVF patients share understandings of what counts as medical evidence, our findings show how their approaches also differ.

A fertility app for two? Women's perspectives on sharing conceptive fertility work with male partners.

Smartphone apps for monitoring bodily signs of ovulation are growing in popularity and becoming increasingly important tools for facilitating or preventing pregnancy. This article explores heterosexual women's experiences of using fertility apps in the context of trying to conceive. Specifically, it focuses on a feature of fertility apps that enables women to share information about fertility with a male partner.

The crafting of hope: Contextualising add-ons in the treatment trajectories of IVF patients.

The proliferation and popularity of additional treatments in IVF, also known as add-ons, has generated widespread discussion and controversy in the UK, where concerns have addressed the lack of evidence to support the efficacy and safety of these treatments, their cost, and their connection to a wider context of privatisation of fertility treatment. Drawing on 42 interviews with IVF patients, this article explores the role of hope in the appeal of add-ons from the patient perspective. The analysis is presented in two parts: firstly, we investigate the role of hope in patients' decision-making on treatment, contextualising add-ons in the broader trajectory of their IVF experience; secondly, we examine how patients navigate the offer of add-ons, focusing on the role of hope in how they rationalise their decisions on whether to include them in their fertility treatment.