ArticleFrontiers in global women's health2025
U.S. young adults' family-building intentions in the event of infertility and knowledge of associated costs.
Article in Frontiers in global women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Family planning of infertile couples: a systematic review of intentions regarding parenthood and return to ART.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Infertility affects approximately 8.5% of married women in the United States, yet there is limited understanding of how young adults anticipate and prepare for potential barriers to biological parenthood. As reproductive planning increasingly intersects with social, medical, and financial considerations, it is important to examine how emerging adults perceive and approach family-building options. This study aims to explore college students' intentions regarding childbearing, their openness to non-traditional family-building methods, and their awareness of the associated financial costs. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to undergraduate students (mean age = 20) at a Midwestern public university. Most participants had not previously attempted to conceive. The survey assessed fertility awareness, preferences for family-building in the context of infertility, and cost estimations for various non-traditional options, including adoption, in vitro fertilization (IVF), and surrogacy. Results: The majority of participants (86%) expressed a desire for biological children, with an average intended family size of 2.3 children. Among non-traditional options, private domestic adoption was the most preferred (58.3%), followed by public adoption (53.0%) and IVF (42.2%). Surrogacy using donor gametes was the least preferred (9.7%). Cost awareness was generally low: only 16.7% of estimates for domestic adoption and 48% for international adoption fell within 75%-125% of actual cost ranges. Gender differences emerged, with women showing greater openness to alternative family-building methods and more accurate cost perceptions, while men reported higher confidence in their reproductive planning. Discussion: These findings suggest that while college students are generally interested in parenthood, they may lack adequate knowledge about the financial and logistical realities of non-traditional family-building options. The gender differences observed highlight the need for targeted educational interventions. Enhancing fertility literacy and financial preparedness among young adults could support more informed and realistic family planning decisions.
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.