ArticleReproductive health2025
Fertility awareness in 97,414 women trying to conceive: gaps, misconceptions, and implications for reproductive education.
Article in Reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fertility knowledge and family planning perspectives among female physicians: a cross-sectional study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Fertility care in the age of algorithms: opportunities and risks of AI and social media integration in reproductive medicine.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- How well do women understand their menstrual cycles? Insights from 383,085 UK based women.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Predictors of fertility preservation awareness and willingness among college students and the general population in Henan, China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Ideal birth spacing between the first and second child among reproductive-aged women in Shandong Province, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
backgroundFertility rates in the UK are at an all-time low, with infertility affecting approximately 1 in 7 couples. Despite the rising demand for fertility services, fertility awareness, specifically knowledge of ovulation and the fertile window, remains low among women of reproductive age. Most existing studies offer a broad perspective, lacking focus on women actively trying to conceive (TTC). This study aims to assess the level of understanding surrounding the fertile window among women TTC, identifying factors associated with knowledge gaps.
methodsA retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 97,414 women actively TTC who answered an online health assessment was conducted. Participants provided information on menstrual cycle characteristics, previous pregnancies, and fertility knowledge, including the timing of the fertile window. Frequencies, percentages were calculated and chi-squared tests performed to assess differences in categorical data. Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) to better understand factors significantly associated with not knowing the fertile window.
resultsOut of the total respondents (97,414), over a third (33,756, 41%) could not accurately identify the fertile window, with substantial misconceptions observed across all age groups and ethnicities. Women with previous pregnancies were more likely to correctly identify the fertile window (OR = 1.45, 97.5% CI: 1.20-1.75, p < 0.001). However, knowledge was significantly lower among those with irregular cycles, non-White ethnicities, younger age groups and longer time TTC. Additionally, misconceptions about cycle regularity were apparent, of 60,322 women describing their cycles as regular 10% did not know their cycle length (66,95) and a further 2.9% fell outside of the clinically regular 21-35 day range. These misconceptions followed a similar trend with younger age groups, non-white ethnicities and longer time TTC having significantly increased rates of misidentifying regular cycles. This further increased the odds of not knowing their fertile window (OR = 2.99, 97.5% CI: 2.83-3.17, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe findings reveal gaps in fertility awareness among women actively TTC. Addressing these knowledge gaps through targeted educational interventions could potentially reduce time-to-pregnancy and the reliance on assisted reproductive technologies. Improved fertility education focusing on cycle tracking and ovulation timing is essential to assist women with accurate information during their TTC journey.
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.