ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Elective fertility preservation among graduate medical trainees: a survey study of perceived barriers and the impact of employer-sponsored financial benefits.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the impact of employer-provided financial support on graduate medical trainees' decision to pursue fertility preservation and to identify perceived barriers to participation in fertility preservation.
methodsAn anonymous online survey study addressing perspectives surrounding participation in elective fertility preservation while in training was distributed in August 2024 to residents and fellows in graduate medical programs across the United States.
resultsOf 306 medical trainee respondents, 202 (67.1%) had intentionally delayed childbearing due to their medical training. There were 66.4% (n = 200) who reported that their sex/gender impacted their interest in fertility preservation, including 87% (n = 172) of whom had been assigned female at birth. High costs and time constraints of training were the most commonly cited factors (63.1%) negatively impacting the decision to participate in elective fertility preservation. Employer financial support was reported by 32.9% (n = 99) as a factor that would make them more likely to pursue fertility preservation. Trainees who worked an average of 60 to > 80 hours per week had the highest rate of reported intentional delay in childbearing, and the time constraints of training negatively impacted their interest in fertility preservation. Only 24% knew whether coverage for fertility services was mandated in their state, 25.2% were unfamiliar with fertility preservation, and 35.3% did not know how to access fertility services.
conclusionMedical trainees face significant financial and structural barriers to accessing fertility preservation. Widespread financial benefits and systemic changes in training programs may improve the feasibility of fertility preservation for graduate medical trainees.
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.