ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2016
A New Way to Estimate the Potential Unmet Need for Infertility Services Among Women in the United States.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Establishing a Gold Standard for Quantitative Menstrual Cycle Monitoring.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Infertility prevalence and the methods of estimation from 1990 to 2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Human reproduction open · 2022Review
- Medical conditions, pregnancy perspectives and contraceptive decision-making among young people: an exploratory, qualitative analysis.Contraception · 2019Article
- Projecting the potential impact of the Cap-Score™ on clinical pregnancy, live births, and medical costs in couples with unexplained infertility.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2018Article
- Responding to Infertility: Lessons From a Growing Body of Research and Suggested Guidelines for Practice.Family relations · 2017Article
- Differences in Use of Fertility Treatment Between People With Medicaid and Private Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's HealthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFewer than 50% of women who meet the medical/behavioral criteria for infertility receive medical services. Estimating the number of women who both meet the medical/behavioral criteria for infertility and who have pro-conception attitudes will allow for better estimates of the potential need and unmet need for infertility services in the United States.
methodsThe National Survey of Fertility Barriers was administered by telephone to a probability sample of 4,712 women in the United States. The sample for this analysis was 292 women who reported an experience of infertility within 3 years of the time of the interview. Infertile women were asked if they were trying to conceive at the time of their infertility experience and if they wanted to have a child to determine who could be considered in need of services.
resultsAmong U.S. women who have met medical criteria for infertility within the past three years, 15.9% report that they were neither trying to have a child nor wanted to have a child and can be classified as not in need of treatment. Of the 84.9% of infertile women in need of treatment, 58.1% did not even talk to a doctor about ways to become pregnant. DISCUSSION: Even after taking into account that not all infertile women are in need of treatment, there is still a large unmet need for infertility treatment in the United States.
conclusionStudies of the incidence of infertility should include measures of both trying to have a child and wanting to have a child.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.