Evaluating the unevaluated: a secondary analysis of the National Survey for Family Growth (NSFG) examining infertile women who did not access care

Association between a body shape index and female infertility: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The relationship between A Body Shape Index (ABSI) and female infertility is not well understood. ABSI, a novel anthropometric measure, is gaining recognition for its ability to more accurately capture visceral fat characteristics than traditional metrics like BMI. This study aims to explore the association between ABSI and female infertility, considering its potential applications in medical screening and risk assessment.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed data from the NHANES from 2013 to 2020. Female infertility was assessed through reproductive health questionnaires, and ABSI was calculated using waist circumference, BMI, and height. Weighted logistic regression models and trend tests were used to evaluate the association between ABSI and female infertility. Restricted cubic splines (RCS) were employed to explore potential nonlinear relationships. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the consistency of the association across various demographic and health-related factors. Sensitivity analyses were also performed, including the exclusion of participants with missing covariate data, the application of propensity score matching, and restricting the analysis to women aged 20-45 years.

RESULTS

The study included 3,718 participants, 433 of whom were diagnosed with infertility. Higher ABSI was associated with an increased risk of female infertility (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.21-2.00, P = 0.001), as demonstrated by weighted logistic regression and trend tests. Women in the highest ABSI quartile had a significantly higher prevalence of infertility compared to those in the lowest quartile (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.27-2.37, P = 0.001). RCS curves indicated a linear positive relationship between ABSI and infertility risk, with a critical value at 0.079. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of these findings.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates a positive linear relationship between ABSI and the risk of female infertility. The use of a simple, non-invasive ABSI measurement could facilitate the early identification of high-risk individuals in large-scale screenings, potentially helping to prevent or reduce the incidence of infertility.

A survey study evaluating donor gamete utilization rates, patient satisfaction, and fertility treatment outcomes according to desired race and ethnicity

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate donor gamete utilization, patient satisfaction, and fertility treatment outcomes of patients pursuing treatment with donor gametes stratified by the desired race as well as ethnicity of the gamete donor.

DESIGN

Survey study.

SETTING

Clinic.

PATIENT(S)

Patients planning to undergo treatment using donor sperm and/or donor oocytes at a single academic fertility clinic in the Southeastern United States between 2015 and 2020.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Utilization rates of donor gametes, satisfaction with donor gamete selection, and fertility treatment outcomes stratified by race and ethnicity of patient, as well as that of their gamete donor.

RESULT(S)

Four hundred fifty patients were eligible for inclusion and 170 (38%) responded to the survey. Among the respondents, 59% desired a non-Hispanic White gamete donor and 20% desired a non-Hispanic Black gamete donor. Patients seeking a non-Hispanic Black gamete donor had lower odds of using donor gametes (Odds ratio [OR], 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.40) compared with individuals seeking a non-Hispanic White gamete donor. When evaluating satisfaction with donor gamete selection, patients seeking a non-Hispanic Black gamete donor reported lower satisfaction compared with individuals seeking a non-Hispanic White gamete donor (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.43). When evaluating fertility outcomes, Non-Hispanic Black patients and those using non-Hispaninc Black gamete donors were found to have lower odds of successful conception compared with non-Hispanic White patients (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.07-0.46) and individuals seeking non-Hispanic White gamete donors (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.75), respectively.

CONCLUSION(S)

Patients seeking non-Hispanic Black donor gametes have lower utilization rates, less satisfaction with gamete donor selection, and lower odds of conception when compared with those seeking non-Hispanic White gamete donors. These findings highlight the need for more racial diversity within donor gamete banks, as well as within the donor pools available through agencies and fertility clinics.

Inequities in Medically Assisted Reproduction: a Scoping Review

Infertility has a high prevalence in the USA and health inequities play a large role in access to medically assisted reproduction (MAR). The aim of this study was to identify gaps in research pertaining to inequities in MAR and propose suggestions for future research directions. Searches were performed using MEDLINE and Ovid Embase. Articles that reported on MAR inequities, published between 2016 and 2021 in the USA, and written in English were included. The inequities investigated were adapted from the NIH-designated health disparities populations. Each article's inequity findings were extracted and reported, along with frequencies of inequities. Our sample included 66 studies. The majority of the studies investigated MAR outcomes by race/ethnicity and found that historically marginalized populations had poorer outcomes. LGBTQ + populations were less likely to use MAR or seek infertility care. Most studies found positive correlations with MAR use with income and education. The least commonly studied inequities in our sample were sex and/or gender and rural/under-resourced populations; findings showed that men and people from rural/under-resourced populations were less likely to access MAR. Studies that examined occupational status had varying findings. We suggest that future research be targeted toward: (1) standardizing and diversifying race/ethnicity reporting regarding MAR, (2) the use of community-based participatory research to increase data for LGBTQ + patients, and (3) increasing access to infertility care for men.

Differences in Use of Fertility Treatment Between People With Medicaid and Private Health Insurance Coverage in the United States

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare differences in receipt of any and specific types of fertility services between people with Medicaid and private insurance.

METHODS

We used National Survey of Family Growth (2002-2019) data and linear probability regression models to examine the association between insurance type (Medicaid or private) and fertility service use. The primary outcome was use of fertility services in the past 12 months, and secondary outcomes were use of specific types of fertility services at any time: 1) testing, 2) common medical treatment, and 3) use of any fertility treatment type (testing, medical treatment, or surgical treatment of infertility). We additionally calculated time-to-pregnancy using a method that estimates the unobserved total amount of time the respondent spent trying to become pregnant using their current duration of pregnancy attempt at the time of the survey. We calculated time-to-pregnancy ratios across respondent characteristics to examine if insurance type was associated with differential time-to-pregnancy.

RESULTS

In adjusted models, Medicaid coverage was associated with an 11.2-percentage point (95% confidence interval: -22.3 to -0.0) lower use of fertility services in the past 12 months compared with private coverage. Relative to private coverage, Medicaid insurance was also associated with large and statistically significantly lower rates of ever having used infertility testing or any fertility services. Insurance type was not associated with differences in time-to-pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

People covered by Medicaid were less likely to have used fertility services compared with people with private insurance. Differences in coverage of fertility services between Medicaid and private payers may represent a barrier to fertility treatment for Medicaid recipients.

Invited Commentary: Vaccines and Fertility-Why Worry?

In a recent issue of the Journal, Wesselink et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(8):1383-1395) presented findings that indicate that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine does not cause any reduction in fertility in either men or women, while COVID-19 infection may reduce fertility temporarily among men. These are reassuring findings for those seeking pregnancy, as well as for clinicians and the public. There was no scientific reason to be concerned about effects of the COVID-19 vaccine on fertility, so some of the psychological, ethical, and historical reasons for concern are discussed. These include perceptions of risk around "unnatural," unusual, or dreaded outcomes; vaccine resistance as part of a social and political identity; and the tendency for moral panics to occur around women's reproductive capacity. On this and other topics, there is a broad need for reproductive health to be better incorporated into clinical trials, and for fertility research to advance in measurement and include a more diverse and global population.

One size does not fit all: variations by ethnicity in demographic characteristics of men seeking fertility treatment across North America

OBJECTIVE

To compare racial differences in male fertility history and treatment.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

SETTING

North American reproductive urology centers.

PATIENT(S)

Males undergoing urologist fertility evaluation.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Demographic and reproductive Andrology Research Consortium data.

RESULT(S)

The racial breakdown of 6,462 men was: 51% White, 20% Asian/Indo-Canadian/Indo-American, 6% Black, 1% Indian/Native, <1% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 21% "Other". White males sought evaluation sooner (3.5 ± 4.7 vs. 3.8 ± 4.2 years), had older partners (33.3 ± 4.9 vs. 32.9 ± 5.2 years), and more had undergone vasectomy (8.4% vs. 2.9%) vs. all other races. Black males were older (38.0 ± 8.1 vs. 36.5 ± 7.4 years), sought fertility evaluation later (4.8 ± 5.1 vs. 3.6 ± 4.4 years), fewer had undergone vasectomy (3.3% vs. 5.9%), and fewer had partners who underwent intrauterine insemination (8.2% vs. 12.6%) compared with all other races. Asian/Indo-Canadian/Indo-American patients were younger (36.1 ± 7.2 vs. 36.7 ± 7.6 years), fewer had undergone vasectomy (1.2% vs. 6.9%), and more had partners who underwent intrauterine insemination (14.2% vs. 11.9%). Indian/Native males sought evaluation later (5.1 ± 6.8 vs. 3.6 ± 4.4 years) and more had undergone vasectomy (13.4% vs. 5.7%).

CONCLUSION(S)

Racial differences exist for males undergoing fertility evaluation by a reproductive urologist. Better understanding of these differences in history in conjunction with societal and biologic factors can guide personalized care, as well as help to better understand and address disparities in access to fertility evaluation and treatment.