ArticleBMC medical education2026
Fertility benefits in graduate medical education: impact of state mandates.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGraduate medical education (GME) in the United States coincides with peak reproductive years, yet institutional fertility benefit policies remain poorly characterized. This study examines coverage disparities and their relationship with state fertility insurance mandates among physician trainees.
methodsCross-sectional review of fertility benefits conducted in the United States analyzing the top 50 U.S. medical schools (US News and World Report 2024). Data collected March-April 2025 from GME websites and employment benefits pages analyzed coverage for initial infertility workup, intrauterine insemination (IUI), in-vitro fertilization (IVF), cycle limitations, and fertility preservation. A chi-square test of independence was used to evaluate the association between state mandate status and the availability of fertility benefits. State mandates were verified through Resolve.org and state insurance department websites. KEY OBSERVATIONS: 62% (31/50) of GME programs offered fertility coverage. Mandated states were significantly more likely to offer fertility benefits (78.1% vs 33.3%; p = 0.004), though coverage remained inconsistent due to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) exemptions, vague descriptions, and lifetime caps. Only 3.2% (1/31) of covered programs explicitly included IVF or fertility preservation coverage.
conclusionsState mandates improve but do not guarantee complete fertility benefit access for medical trainees. GME programs must proactively address structural gaps through comprehensive benefits, transparent policies, and fertility education to advance trainee wellness, gender equity, and workforce retention.
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.