Sara Crawford1, Chris Fussman2, Marie Bailey3, Dana Bernson4, Denise J Jamieson1, Melissa Murray-Jordan3, Dmitry M Kissin1. 1. 1 Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia . 2. 2 Michigan Department of Community Health , Lansing, Michigan. 3. 3 Florida Department of Health , Tallahassee, Florida. 4. 4 Massachusetts Department of Public Health , Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of state-specific infertility is limited. The objectives of this study were to explore state-specific estimates of lifetime prevalence of having ever experienced infertility, sought treatment for infertility, types of treatments sought, and treatment outcomes. METHODS: Male and female adult residents aged 18-50 years from three states involved in the States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology Collaborative (Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan) were asked state-added infertility questions as part of the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a state-based, health-related telephone survey. Analysis involved estimation of lifetime prevalence of infertility. RESULTS: The estimated lifetime prevalence of infertility among 1,285 adults in Florida, 1,302 in Massachusetts, and 3,360 in Michigan was 9.7%, 6.0%, and 4.2%, respectively. Among 736 adults in Florida, 1,246 in Massachusetts, and 2,742 in Michigan that have ever tried to get pregnant, the lifetime infertility prevalence was 25.3% in Florida, 9.9% in Massachusetts, and 5.8% in Michigan. Among those with a history of infertility, over half sought treatment (60.7% in Florida, 70.6% in Massachusetts, and 51.6% in Michigan), the most common being non-assisted reproductive technology fertility treatments (61.3% in Florida, 66.0% in Massachusetts, and 75.9% in Michigan). CONCLUSION: State-specific estimates of lifetime infertility prevalence in Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan varied. Variations across states are difficult to interpret, as they likely reflect both true differences in prevalence and differences in data collection questionnaires. State-specific estimates are needed for the prevention, detection, and management of infertility, but estimates should be based on a common set of questions appropriate for these goals.
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of state-specific infertility is limited. The objectives of this study were to explore state-specific estimates of lifetime prevalence of having ever experienced infertility, sought treatment for infertility, types of treatments sought, and treatment outcomes. METHODS: Male and female adult residents aged 18-50 years from three states involved in the States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology Collaborative (Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan) were asked state-added infertility questions as part of the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a state-based, health-related telephone survey. Analysis involved estimation of lifetime prevalence of infertility. RESULTS: The estimated lifetime prevalence of infertility among 1,285 adults in Florida, 1,302 in Massachusetts, and 3,360 in Michigan was 9.7%, 6.0%, and 4.2%, respectively. Among 736 adults in Florida, 1,246 in Massachusetts, and 2,742 in Michigan that have ever tried to get pregnant, the lifetime infertility prevalence was 25.3% in Florida, 9.9% in Massachusetts, and 5.8% in Michigan. Among those with a history of infertility, over half sought treatment (60.7% in Florida, 70.6% in Massachusetts, and 51.6% in Michigan), the most common being non-assisted reproductive technology fertility treatments (61.3% in Florida, 66.0% in Massachusetts, and 75.9% in Michigan). CONCLUSION: State-specific estimates of lifetime infertility prevalence in Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan varied. Variations across states are difficult to interpret, as they likely reflect both true differences in prevalence and differences in data collection questionnaires. State-specific estimates are needed for the prevention, detection, and management of infertility, but estimates should be based on a common set of questions appropriate for these goals.
Authors: Aniket D Kulkarni; Denise J Jamieson; Howard W Jones; Dmitry M Kissin; Maria F Gallo; Maurizio Macaluso; Eli Y Adashi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D Caserta; G Bordi; M Stegagno; F Filippini; M Podagrosi; D Roselli; M Moscarini Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2013-12-15 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Saswati Sunderam; Dmitry M Kissin; Lisa Flowers; John E Anderson; Suzanne G Folger; Denise J Jamieson; Wanda D Barfield Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2012-11-02
Authors: Maya N Mascarenhas; Seth R Flaxman; Ties Boerma; Sheryl Vanderpoel; Gretchen A Stevens Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Joseph B Stanford; Tracey Parnell; Kristi Kantor; Matthew R Reeder; Shahpar Najmabadi; Karen Johnson; Iris Musso; Hanna Hartman; Elizabeth Tham; Ira Winter; Krzysztof Galczynski; Anne Carus; Amy Sherlock; Jean Golden Tevald; Maciej Barczentewicz; Barbara Meier; Paul Carpentier; Karen Poehailos; Robert Chasuk; Peter Danis; Lewis Lipscomb Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2022-08-09