OBJECTIVE: Nationally, infertility therapies (IFTs) are increasingly used to overcome fecundity issues. However, it is unclear to what extent noninvasive IFTs are used compared with assisted reproductive technology. To better understand outcomes related to the increasing use of all types of IFTs, we compared self-reported IFT use from a Massachusetts pilot Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (MA-PRAMS) to IFT use recorded on birth certificates (BCs). METHODS: In 2005, Massachusetts conducted a three-month pilot study modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's PRAMS, a population-based surveillance system that monitors pregnancy experiences. Descriptive and bivariate analyses compared responses to MA-PRAMS survey questions regarding IFT use with data collected on BCs from the same women sampled. RESULTS: According to MA-PRAMS, 6.1% of live births were conceived using IFTs compared with 3.1% reported on BCs. Reported IFT use varied by maternal age and plurality. For women aged 18-34 years, IFT use reported on MA-PRAMS (5.0%) was 2.5 times higher than that reported on BCs (2.0%). For women aged 35 years or older, reported IFT use was comparable in both systems. For women giving birth to singletons, IFT use reported on MA-PRAMS (5.5%) was three times higher than that reported on BCs (1.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Higher use of IFTs was reported by MA-PRAMS than on BCs, particularly among younger women and those having singleton births. These findings suggest that self-reported IFT use might be a more sensitive method for states to use in assessing population-based IFT usage among women and monitoring trends in adverse birth outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Nationally, infertility therapies (IFTs) are increasingly used to overcome fecundity issues. However, it is unclear to what extent noninvasive IFTs are used compared with assisted reproductive technology. To better understand outcomes related to the increasing use of all types of IFTs, we compared self-reported IFT use from a Massachusetts pilot Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (MA-PRAMS) to IFT use recorded on birth certificates (BCs). METHODS: In 2005, Massachusetts conducted a three-month pilot study modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's PRAMS, a population-based surveillance system that monitors pregnancy experiences. Descriptive and bivariate analyses compared responses to MA-PRAMS survey questions regarding IFT use with data collected on BCs from the same women sampled. RESULTS: According to MA-PRAMS, 6.1% of live births were conceived using IFTs compared with 3.1% reported on BCs. Reported IFT use varied by maternal age and plurality. For women aged 18-34 years, IFT use reported on MA-PRAMS (5.0%) was 2.5 times higher than that reported on BCs (2.0%). For women aged 35 years or older, reported IFT use was comparable in both systems. For women giving birth to singletons, IFT use reported on MA-PRAMS (5.5%) was three times higher than that reported on BCs (1.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Higher use of IFTs was reported by MA-PRAMS than on BCs, particularly among younger women and those having singleton births. These findings suggest that self-reported IFT use might be a more sensitive method for states to use in assessing population-based IFT usage among women and monitoring trends in adverse birth outcomes.