ArticleTherapeutic advances in reproductive health
Assessment of reproductive knowledge among young adults utilizing Amazon mechanical Turk survey.
Article in Therapeutic advances in reproductive health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Reproductive health technology has evolved significantly since the introduction of in vitro fertilization in 1978, enhancing the possibility of conceiving children at later stages in life. Despite these advancements, there remains a critical gap in fertility knowledge among young adults, as demonstrated by recent studies. This gap is compounded by the growing influence of social media on health information, where misinformation can distort public understanding of fertility-related issues. Addressing this knowledge deficit is essential for empowering individuals to make informed decisions about their reproductive futures. Objectives: With the increasing prevalence of older individuals becoming parents and the growing reliance on Assisted Reproductive Technologies for conception, our study aimed to assess fertility knowledge among young adults. Design: This study employed a survey-based approach using Amazon's crowd-sourcing marketing platform, Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants were asked to complete a 17-question survey that included a section on demographic information. The questionnaire explored various aspects of knowledge and perceptions regarding male and female fertility. Methods: The survey was completed by 983 participants aged 18-30, recruited through MTurk. Individuals outside this age range were excluded from the study. Participants received a $0.50 incentive for their participation. Results: Notably, a high percentage of respondents correctly identified the age range at which female fertility (70.4% of participants) declines, while fewer (56.4% of participants) demonstrated awareness of the age range at which male fertility declines. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority exhibited appropriate knowledge regarding the impact of lifestyle factors, such as obesity and smoking, on fertility. The findings suggest an encouragingly high level of awareness among participants regarding fundamental fertility concepts. Approximately 63% of participants reported social media as a source of this information. Conclusion: This study yields promising insights into fertility knowledge among young adults. However, it underscores a notable deficiency in understanding male fertility, emphasizing the imperative for further educational initiatives in this domain. These results also highlight the crucial role of healthcare providers in maintaining an online presence to disseminate valuable, evidence-based knowledge. By doing so, healthcare professionals can empower individuals to make informed decisions regarding fertility.
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.