Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026
REI physicians' personal experience with infertility.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barseghyan Mariam, Aksentijevich Milena, Legro Nicole, Zhang Amy, Aghajanova Lusine
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose was to evaluate reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) physicians' personal experience with infertility.
METHODS: A 40-question cross-sectional survey addressing demographics, fertility choices, and types of infertility treatments undertaken by REI physicians was developed. A link to the anonymous survey was sent to the REI specialists via email, social media, and personal contacts. Statistical analysis also compared responses of participants ≤ 35 and > 35 years old regarding their experience with infertility.
RESULTS: 165 respondents completed the survey. Most identified as heterosexual (93%) married (88%) women (82%) between ages 31 and 45 (73%). 44% of all respondents reported using infertility treatment to conceive. Most used in vitro fertilization (IVF, 51%), as well as intrauterine insemination (IUI, 14%), medicated timed intercourse (MTIC, 12%), oocyte cryopreservation (5%), and a gestational carrier (GC, 4%). For the 30% of respondents, the cause of infertility was anovulation/oligo-ovulation, followed by poor ovarian reserve/age (18%), male factor infertility (18%), and recurrent pregnancy loss (18%). 40% of respondents reported no insurance coverage while 30% endorsed partial coverage. 79% reported having shared their experiences with their patients. 47% said that their career choice possibly negatively affected their fertility (yes/maybe/not sure). This was significantly different between respondents ≤ 35 and > 35 years old (p = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: While REI physicians have professional understanding of infertility, nearly half were affected by it needing to undergo treatment with minimal or no insurance coverage. The prolonged and demanding training is a likely contributor. The generalizability of our findings is limited by potential sampling and nonresponse biases inherent in voluntary survey designs.
METHODS: A 40-question cross-sectional survey addressing demographics, fertility choices, and types of infertility treatments undertaken by REI physicians was developed. A link to the anonymous survey was sent to the REI specialists via email, social media, and personal contacts. Statistical analysis also compared responses of participants ≤ 35 and > 35 years old regarding their experience with infertility.
RESULTS: 165 respondents completed the survey. Most identified as heterosexual (93%) married (88%) women (82%) between ages 31 and 45 (73%). 44% of all respondents reported using infertility treatment to conceive. Most used in vitro fertilization (IVF, 51%), as well as intrauterine insemination (IUI, 14%), medicated timed intercourse (MTIC, 12%), oocyte cryopreservation (5%), and a gestational carrier (GC, 4%). For the 30% of respondents, the cause of infertility was anovulation/oligo-ovulation, followed by poor ovarian reserve/age (18%), male factor infertility (18%), and recurrent pregnancy loss (18%). 40% of respondents reported no insurance coverage while 30% endorsed partial coverage. 79% reported having shared their experiences with their patients. 47% said that their career choice possibly negatively affected their fertility (yes/maybe/not sure). This was significantly different between respondents ≤ 35 and > 35 years old (p = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: While REI physicians have professional understanding of infertility, nearly half were affected by it needing to undergo treatment with minimal or no insurance coverage. The prolonged and demanding training is a likely contributor. The generalizability of our findings is limited by potential sampling and nonresponse biases inherent in voluntary survey designs.