Original Research Article

Building a sustainable IVF centre in resource-limited settings

A progressive low-CAPEX model in West Africa

Eulalie Manket-Kouassi, MD

Fertility and Reproductive Medicine Specialist

Founder and Medical Director

Clinique Notre Dame de la Tendresse (CNDT)

Fertility & IVF Centre — ISO 9001:2015

Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire | Silver Spring, United States

Submitted to: International Journal of Health Planning and Management
Abstract

Background : Sub-Saharan Africa bears a disproportionate burden of infertility — estimated at 30–40% of couples in some regions — yet accounts for less than 2% of global assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. Conventional IVF laboratory installations require capital expenditure exceeding USD 1.5 million, rendering them inaccessible to most clinicians in the region.

Objective : To present a progressive low-CAPEX model for building a fertility centre in West Africa, based on the documented 16-year trajectory (2010–2026) of a practitioner who started with a consulting room, an ultrasound probe and one assistant, and developed, through phased self-funded investment, a complete IVF/ICSI centre now being replicated through a hub-and-spoke network across West Africa. The model is formalised through a dedicated normative framework: the CNDT Standard.

Methods : We report longitudinal operational, clinical and financial data from the Clinique Notre Dame de la Tendresse (CNDT), Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire (2010–2026), describing the organic progression from a solo gynaecological practice to a recognised internationally-oriented fertility and IVF centre, with representation in Silver Spring, Maryland (USA). We also present the early-stage replication of this model at two satellite sites — one in a rural regional context, the other in an urban metropolitan context — as well as the network architecture deployed across Benin, Togo, Nigeria, Senegal and Ghana.

Results : Starting from an initial investment of less than USD 15,000, the centre progressively achieved clinical pregnancy rates of 46% per IUI cycle and 68% per IVF/ICSI transfer (internal data, pending ICMART standardisation), supporting more than 15,000 women over 16 years. Cumulative CAPEX for full IVF/ICSI capacity remained below USD 420,000 — a 70–75% reduction compared with turnkey installations. Two satellite partnerships were initiated with zero additional capital investment, projecting combined first-year revenues of 143–169 million FCFA (USD 238,000–282,000).

Conclusions : The 16-year trajectory from solo fertility consultation to complete IVF centre constitutes a replicable, data-supported model for reproductive medicine capacity building in resource-limited settings. The integration of ethno-biological, cultural and spiritual dimensions into clinical protocols is a decisive differentiating factor. The CNDT Standard and hub-and-spoke architecture provide a framework for scaling.

Keywords : assisted reproductive technologies ; IVF ; low CAPEX ; sub-Saharan Africa ; CNDT Standard ; hub-and-spoke ; ethno-biological specificities ; cultural adaptation ; progressive deployment ; fertility entrepreneurship ; Côte d'Ivoire

1. Introduction

In 2010, in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, a gynaecologist trained in reproductive medicine opened a consulting room with a single assistant and an ultrasound probe. There was no laboratory, no incubator, no dedicated assisted reproduction equipment. There was only a conviction: that the women of West Africa, burdened by some of the highest infertility rates in the world and abandoned by a healthcare system that offered them nothing, deserved structured, dignified and scientifically grounded fertility care.

Sixteen years and more than 15,000 women later, that consulting room has become the Clinique Notre Dame de la Tendresse (CNDT) — a fertility and IVF centre pursuing ISO 9001:2015 certification, with a dual presence in Abidjan and representation in Silver Spring, Maryland (USA), offering the full spectrum of assisted reproductive technologies including IVF, ICSI, vitrification, donation programmes and AI-assisted personalised clinical protocols. The centre is now replicating its model through satellite partnerships and a network extending to Benin, Togo, Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana and beyond.

This trajectory is not the product of a single massive investment. It was built progressively, each capability funded by the revenues of the previous phase, each clinical expansion conditioned by demonstrated competence and financial viability. It is this organic, self-funded, phased progression — from solo consultation to complete IVF centre to regional network — that constitutes the model presented in this article.

The dominant paradigm for establishing IVF services in Africa has historically replicated Western turnkey installations costing between USD 1.2 and 3 million (Ombelet et al., 2008). Multiple centre closures across the continent between 2015 and 2022 demonstrated that this approach systematically fails when transplanted into environments characterised by unreliable electricity, fragile supply chains, absent regulatory frameworks and out-of-pocket payment models (Ombelet & Van Blerkom, 2020). This article argues that the failure lies not in the aspiration but in the deployment model, and presents a documented alternative.

2. The founding context: one clinician, one assistant, one mission

The author's personal trajectory is inseparable from the model. Born in Abengourou, raised in Koumassi, Abidjan, trained in obstetrics and gynaecology in Côte d'Ivoire then in reproductive medicine at a university fertility centre in Strasbourg, France — the first Ivorian to hold such a position — the author returned to Abidjan with a specific mission: to build a fertility practice adapted to the realities of African women.

The motivation was deeply personal. The author's mother, Ama, had herself experienced infertility in a culture where a woman's value is measured by her fertility. The stigmatisation, the silence, the social ostracism — these were not abstract concepts. They were lived experiences that shaped a clinical philosophy: fertility medicine must see the whole woman — her body, her culture, her spirituality — and must be built from the ground up in the context where it is needed, not imported wholesale from environments with fundamentally different conditions.

2.1 The burden of infertility in West Africa

Infertility affects approximately 30–40% of couples in some regions of sub-Saharan Africa, primarily linked to tubal infertility (STI sequelae, unsafe abortions, postpartum sepsis) and increasingly recognised male infertility (WHO, 2023; Mascarenhas et al., 2012). In Côte d'Ivoire, no national policy framework governs ART services, fertility treatment is absent from essential health packages, and the payment model is almost entirely out-of-pocket.

In many African contexts, childlessness leads to loss of social status and marital vulnerability, while the public reproductive health agenda remains largely dominated by family planning and birth spacing. This disconnect between the social burden of infertility and programmatic priorities leads to majority reliance on the private sector (Gerrits, 2016; Dyer & Patel, 2012).

2.2 Ethno-biological, cultural and spiritual adaptation: a clinical imperative

The CNDT model is based on a finding drawn directly from clinical experience: standardised protocols designed for European populations produce significantly lower results when applied without adaptation to African women. Ethno-biological specificities — high prevalence of uterine fibroids, distinct inflammatory and immunological profiles, ovarian reserve particularities — require protocol adjustments that conventional medicine does not offer.

Beyond biology, the cultural and spiritual dimension directly determines therapeutic adherence and clinical outcomes. Religion — Islam and Christianity primarily in West Africa — influences the perception of fertility, the acceptability of ART techniques (gamete donation, embryo freezing), and the couple's relationship within the care pathway. Integrating these dimensions into the clinical protocol is not an optional addition: it is a key success factor that differentiates the CNDT model from imported approaches (Inhorn & Patrizio, 2015).

2.3 Why Western models systematically fail

Turnkey IVF installations presuppose reliable electricity, temperature-controlled logistics, available embryologists and regulatory quality assurance. Transplanted without adaptation, they produce centres overcapitalised relative to patient volumes, technically fragile and non-viable without external subsidy. The author witnessed this pattern directly during training in France, where women from Africa, the Maghreb and Asia were subjected to protocols blind to their ethno-biological, cultural and spiritual specificities — and where poor outcomes were attributed to patients rather than the system.

3. The progressive model: from consulting room to IVF centre

The model presented here is not theoretical. It is the retrospective documentation of an actual trajectory, executed between 2010 and 2026 at the Clinique Notre Dame de la Tendresse. What follows describes the effective sequence of capability building, investment decisions and clinical milestones that transformed a solo gynaecological consultation into a complete reproductive medicine institution.

3.1 Phase 0: Solo consultation (2010)

Starting point: one consulting room, one medical assistant, one ultrasound probe. No dedicated ART equipment. No laboratory. Initial investment below USD 15,000.

Clinical scope: general gynaecological consultations with a deliberate focus on fertility assessment. The author began systematically structuring fertility workups: detailed couple history, methodical coordination of hormonal assessments, ovulation monitoring, timed intercourse guidance, and referral for surgical correction of tubal and uterine pathologies.

This phase was foundational in a way that no equipment purchase could replicate. It built the patient base. It established the clinical reputation. It generated the word-of-mouth referral network that would sustain every subsequent phase.

3.2 Phase 1: Structured fertility services and IUI (2011)

Investment: USD 45,000–65,000, entirely self-funded from Phase 0 revenues. Acquisitions: reconditioned benchtop incubator, basic andrology equipment, IUI catheter stock, dedicated ovulation monitoring probe, clean room conversion of an existing treatment room.

IUI requires significantly less laboratory infrastructure than IVF, involves lower consumable costs per cycle, and allows the clinical team to develop essential skills in controlled ovarian stimulation, precise timing and sperm preparation before introducing the complexity of oocyte retrieval and embryo culture.

Clinical outcomes: IUI pregnancy rate of 46% per cycle. Operating surplus systematically reinvested at rates exceeding 80%. The team grew from 1 assistant to 5 dedicated fertility staff.

3.3 Phase 2: IVF introduction (2017)

Investment: USD 180,000–220,000, self-funded. The largest single disbursement in the centre's history. Acquisitions: tri-gas benchtop incubator system, laminar flow workstation with heated stage, stereomicroscope for embryo assessment, oocyte retrieval needle and aspiration pump, controlled-rate freezer for basic cryopreservation, HEPA filtration and VOC monitoring, uninterruptible power supply with automatic generator switchover.

Visiting embryologist model: rather than recruiting a full-time international embryologist (annual cost: USD 80,000–120,000), the centre engaged experienced embryologists for three-week rotations every two months. This model reduced senior embryology costs by approximately 60% and created a structured competency transfer pathway.

Clinical IVF pregnancy rate reached 68% per embryo transfer by end of phase. The centre began receiving patients from the West African diaspora in Europe and North America.

3.4 Phase 3: ICSI and advanced ART (2018)

Investment: USD 120,000–160,000, entirely from retained earnings. Acquisitions: micromanipulation system, vitrification consumables and dewars, enhanced cryogenic storage, electronic witness system.

The introduction of ICSI was clinically decisive: approximately 40% of couples at CNDT presented severe male infertility for which conventional IVF offered limited benefit. ICSI expanded the treatable patient population and increased per-cycle revenue by 20–30%.

By 2026, CNDT is completing its ISO 9001:2015 certification programme, has supported more than 15,000 women, employs 8 ART-dedicated staff including 2 full-time embryologists, and has launched the CNDT Standard as a formalised quality framework.

Table 1. CNDT trajectory summary: from solo consultation to complete IVF centre (2010–2026)

PhasePeriodCAPEX (USD)Key capability addedMilestone
Phase 0 — Solo consultation2010–2014< 15,000Structured consultations, ultrasound, ovulation monitoringPatient base; referral network; protocols developed
Phase 1 — IUI2014–201845,000–65,000Intrauterine insemination, basic andrology, sperm preparation46% IUI pregnancy; team of 5; consistent surplus
Phase 2 — IVF2018–2022180,000–220,000Conventional IVF, embryo transfer, retrieval, cryopreservation68% IVF pregnancy; diaspora patients; US representation
Phase 3 — ICSI + Advanced2022–2026120,000–160,000ICSI, vitrification, donation, AI, telemedicine, hub-and-spoke, 50+ careISO 9001:2015; 15,000+ women; 2 satellites; 5-country network
CUMULATIVE2010–2026< 420,000Complete IVF/ICSI centre with international reach70–75% CAPEX reduction vs turnkey

4. The CNDT Standard: a normative framework born from practice

The CNDT Standard was not designed in a boardroom. It emerged organically from 16 years of clinical practice, from the systematic documentation of what worked, what failed, and the conditions necessary for each phase transition to succeed.

4.1 Founding principles

The Standard rests on five principles: (1) normative progression — quality requirements scale with declared capability; (2) diagnostic integration — performance measurement is embedded in daily operations; (3) ethno-biocultural adaptation — protocols explicitly account for local epidemiology, population-specific biological characteristics, cultural and spiritual dimensions; (4) financial viability — every quality improvement initiative is linked to revenue generation; (5) 50+ niche integration — protocols include enhanced governance for the safe management of women of advanced maternal age.

Table 2. CNDT Standard — Capability maturity levels

LevelClinical scopeLaboratory capabilityQuality requirements
Level 0 — ConsultationStructured consultations, ultrasound, ovulation monitoring, systematic couple assessmentExternal lab coordination; no in-house labPatient pathway SOPs, reference protocols, basic KPIs
Level 1 — IUIOvulation induction, IUI, basic fertility diagnosticsSemen analysis, sperm preparation, basic andrologyComplete SOPs, incidents, competencies, teleconsultation
Level 2 — IVFConventional IVF, embryo transfer, oocyte retrievalIVF culture, embryo grading, cryopreservationQMS documentation, internal audits, CAPA, visiting embryologist
Level 3 — Advanced ARTICSI, vitrification, donation, PGT-A, 50+ careMicromanipulation, extended culture, electronic witnessFull CNDT compliance, external benchmarking, AI protocols
Level 4 — Centre of excellenceResearch, training, satellite network supervision, international advisoryGamete/embryo bank, research-grade systemsInternational accreditation, published outcomes, auditor network

5. Scaling: the hub-and-spoke network

By 2024, the CNDT model had matured sufficiently for transmission. The question was no longer whether a single clinician could build a fertility centre from scratch — that had been demonstrated — but whether the process could be accelerated for others through structured partnership, remote supervision and codified protocols.

5.1 Satellite site A (rural/regional context)

Located in a regional capital in eastern Côte d'Ivoire. Catchment population: 400,000–600,000. No structured fertility centre in the entire region. The site already possesses approximately 70% of prerequisites. Additional initial investment: zero. Projected annual revenue at 3 patients/week: 32–35 million FCFA (USD 53,000–58,000).

5.2 Satellite site B (urban metropolitan context)

Located in Abidjan's most populated commune. Projected annual revenue at 4 patients/week: 111–134 million FCFA (USD 185,000–224,000). This higher figure reflects the broader service scope (including pre-IVF surgery volume) and the patient density advantage in urban settings.

5.4 The West African network

Beyond the two operational satellite sites, the CNDT model extends through a partnership network covering five West African countries: Benin, Togo, Nigeria, Senegal and Ghana. The diversity of regulatory, linguistic (francophone and anglophone) and religious contexts constitutes a full-scale test of the CNDT Standard's ability to adapt while maintaining quality coherence.

Table 3. Hub-and-spoke operational circuit

StepActivityLocation / ActorRevenue allocation
1Initial consultation: comprehensive clinical couple assessmentSatellite (local gynaecologist)100% satellite
2Structured clinical summary transmission to hubART focal point at satelliteSatellite overheads
3Specialist teleconsultation: diagnosis, strategyHub (CNDT specialist, telemedicine)100% hub (via CNDT portal)
4Targeted examinations (local + hub assays)Distributed executionEach party retains 100% of its procedures
5Protocol design and monitoring validationHub validates; satellite monitorsProtocol: hub. Monitoring: satellite
6Specialist procedures (IUI, IVF, ICSI)Hub initially; progressive transfer100% to performing centre
7Competency transfer and progressive autonomyHub trains satellite staffTraining: hub. Autonomous procedures: satellite

6. Financial architecture

The financial logic of this model is its most radical feature: at no point in 16 years did the centre take on debt for capacity expansion. Each phase was funded by operating surplus, and each investment decision conditioned by demonstrated revenue generation.

The hub's cumulative CAPEX below USD 420,000 represents a 70–75% reduction compared with turnkey installations of equivalent capacity. The satellite model extends this efficiency further: zero additional investment produces immediate revenue by mobilising existing infrastructure and remote expertise.

Table 4. Financial architecture of hub and satellite deployments

ComponentInvestmentYear 1 revenueBreakevenSource
Hub Phase 0: Consultation< $15,000ImmediateMonth 3–6Personal savings
Hub Phase 1: IUI$45–65,000Surplus > costs M8Month 8Phase 0 revenues
Hub Phase 2: IVF$180–220,000Month 26 (cum.)Phase 1 revenues
Hub Phase 3: ICSI+$120–160,000Month 34 (cum.)Phase 2 revenues
Satellite A (rural)Zero32–35M FCFAImmediateExisting infrastructure
Satellite B (urban)Zero111–134M FCFAImmediateExisting infrastructure

7. Quality, risk and competency management

The phased model inherently mitigates risk across three dimensions. Medical risk is controlled through protocol supervision, structured competency transfer and conditioned autonomy. Financial risk is limited by the absence of debt. Reputational risk is managed through structured patient pathways, traceability and association with the ISO 9001:2015-certified hub.

A dashboard of 18 KPIs is tracked at the hub across four domains: clinical outcomes, laboratory performance, operational efficiency and patient experience.

8. Discussion

8.1 The consultation as neglected foundation

The most important lesson from this 16-year trajectory is that the consultation phase — Phase 0 — is not merely a preamble to 'real' fertility treatment. It is the economic and clinical foundation upon which everything else is built.

8.2 Ethno-biocultural adaptation as clinical necessity

The model's emphasis on integrating ethno-biological, cultural and spiritual specificities is not a marketing argument — it is a clinical requirement. African women present distinct biological profiles: high prevalence of uterine fibroids, chronic inflammation, specific immunological patterns.

8.3 The 50+ niche

In a context where advanced maternal age is systematically treated as a contraindication, the CNDT model has deliberately developed expertise in the safe management of women over 50. This orientation is both clinically grounded and economically structuring.

8.4 Replicability

The two satellite partnerships demonstrate replicability across contexts. The five-country network extends the demonstration to francophone and anglophone contexts. We estimate that several hundred private gynaecological practices in West and Central Africa meet the entry conditions for the satellite model.

8.5 Limitations

The reported clinical pregnancy rates (46% IUI, 68% IVF/ICSI) come from internal data not yet standardised according to ICMART/ESHRE criteria and should be interpreted with appropriate caution. This is a single-hub implementation; multicentre validation is needed.

9. Conclusion

In 2010, a single clinician with an assistant, an ultrasound probe and a conviction opened a consulting room in Abidjan. By 2026, that room had become an ISO-certified IVF centre with international reach, two satellite partnerships, a five-country West African network, a formalised quality standard, and a documented trajectory demonstrating that the path from consultation to IVF centre can be travelled without external subsidy, without simultaneous transformative investment, and without compromising clinical quality.

The model presented here is not theoretical. It is the lived experience of 16 years of practice, codified into a transferable framework. Its originality lies in the integration of ethno-biological, cultural and spiritual specificities as pillars of clinical success, not as obstacles to be circumvented.

For the thousands of gynaecologists across West and Central Africa who see infertile couples every day but lack the infrastructure to help them — the message of this article is that infrastructure is not the starting point. The consultation is. And from that consultation, with method, discipline and patience, everything else can be built.

References
  1. 1.Ombelet W, Cooke I, Dyer S, Serour G, Devroey P. Infertility and the provision of infertility medical services in developing countries. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(6):605–621.
  2. 2.Dyer SJ, Patel M. The economic impact of infertility on women in developing countries – a systematic review. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2012;4(2):102–109.
  3. 3.Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411–426.
  4. 4.Gerrits T. Assisted reproductive technologies in Ghana: transnational undertakings, local encounters and emerging inequalities. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016;2:32–38.
  5. 5.Ombelet W. Is global access to infertility care realistic? The Walking Egg Project. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(3):267–272.
  6. 6.Van Blerkom J, Ombelet W, et al. First births with a simplified culture system for clinical IVF and embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(3):310–320.
  7. 7.Ombelet W, Van Blerkom J. IVF in Africa: what is it all about? Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2020;12(4):267–275.
  8. 8.Ajayi AB, Ajayi VD, Oyetunji IO, et al. Affordable ART practice in Africa: the Nigerian experience. J Clin Pract. 2021;24(5):S54–S59.
  9. 9.Murage A, Muteshi JC, Githae F. Assisted reproduction services provision in Kenya: time to regulate the industry. East Afr Med J. 2012;89(6):190–195.
  10. 10.Pennings G, de Wert G, Shenfield F, et al. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law: Providing infertility treatment in resource-poor countries. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(5):1008–1011.
  11. 11.World Health Organization. Infertility prevalence estimates, 1990–2021. Geneva: WHO; 2023.
  12. 12.Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, et al. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis. PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356.
  13. 13.European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). ART Fact Sheet 2023.
  14. 14.African Network and Registry for ART (ANARA). Annual Report 2022–2023.
  15. 15.World Health Organization. WHO guideline for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Geneva: WHO; 2025.
  16. 16.Fadare JO, Adeniyi AA. Ethical issues in newer assisted reproductive technologies: a view from Nigeria. Niger J Clin Pract. 2015;18(Suppl):S57–S63.
  17. 17.Hammarberg K, Kirkman M. De-stigmatising IVF: a need for reconceptualisation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36(5):534–540.
  18. 18.Dickens BM, Cook RJ. Reproductive health and public health ethics. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2008;101(2):106–109.
  19. 19.Manket-Kouassi E. The Billion-Dollar Fertility Legacy: Breaking Barriers, Building Families, and Creating a Movement. Clinique NDT Publishing; 2025.

Conflict of Interest

The author is founder and medical director of Clinique Notre Dame de la Tendresse (CNDT), designer of the CNDT Standard, and holds active advisory engagements with the satellite sites described. These relationships are disclosed for transparency.

Funding

No external funding. All investments described were self-funded from clinical revenues.

Ethical Considerations

All clinical data are aggregated and anonymised. No individual patient data are presented.

Interested in the CNDT model?

Discover how this progressive model can be adapted to your context — or apply to the satellite partnership programme.