Literature DB >> 35316438

Sociodemographic differences in utilization of fertility services among reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer in the USA.

Paxton Voigt1, Jesse Persily2, Jennifer K Blakemore3, Frederick Licciardi3, Sameer Thakker4, Bobby Najari2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether sociodemographic differences exist among female patients accessing fertility services post-cancer diagnosis in a representative sample of the United States population.
METHODS: All women ages 15-45 with a history of cancer who responded to the National Survey for Family Growth (NSFG) from 2011 to 2017 were included. The population was then stratified into 2 groups, defined as those who did and did not seek infertility services. The demographic characteristics of age, legal marital status, education, race, religion, insurance status, access to healthcare, and self-perceived health were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome measure was the utilization of fertility services. The complex sample analysis using the provided sample weights required by the NSFG survey design was used.
RESULTS: Five hundred forty-five women reported a history of cancer and were included in this study. Forty-three (7.89%) pursued fertility services after their cancer diagnosis. Using the NSFG sample weights, this equates to a population of 161,500.7 female cancer survivors in the USA who did utilize fertility services and 1,811,955.3 women who did not. Using multivariable analysis, household income, marital status, and race were significantly associated with women utilizing fertility services following a cancer diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationally representative cohort of reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer, there are marital, socioeconomic, and racial differences between those who utilized fertility services and those who did not. This difference did not appear to be due to insurance coverage, access to healthcare, or perceived health status.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Embryo banking; Fertility preservation; Oocyte cryopreservation; Racial disparity

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35316438      PMCID: PMC9051007          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02455-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.357


  29 in total

Review 1.  Influence of race and ethnicity on in vitro fertilization outcomes: systematic review.

Authors:  Leigh A Humphries; Olivia Chang; Kathryn Humm; Denny Sakkas; Michele R Hacker
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Mean Age of Mothers is on the Rise: United States, 2000-2014.

Authors:  T J Mathews; Brady E Hamilton
Journal:  NCHS Data Brief       Date:  2016-01

Review 3.  Explaining disparities in treatment seeking: the case of infertility.

Authors:  Lynn White; Julia McQuillan; Arthur L Greil
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-03-09       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  A prospective study of stress among women undergoing in vitro fertilization or gamete intrafallopian transfer.

Authors:  H Klonoff-Cohen; E Chu; L Natarajan; W Sieber
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  Planning and development of the continuous National Survey of Family Growth.

Authors:  Robert M Groves; William D Mosher; James M Lepkowski; Nicole G Kirgis
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 1       Date:  2009-09

6.  Disparities in Counseling Female Cancer Patients for Fertility Preservation.

Authors:  Angela K Lawson; Jamie M McGuire; Edernst Noncent; John F Olivieri; Kristin N Smith; Erica E Marsh
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Diagnostic and therapeutic delays among a multiethnic sample of breast and cervical cancer survivors.

Authors:  Kimlin T Ashing-Giwa; Patricia Gonzalez; Jung-Won Lim; Cathie Chung; Benjamin Paz; George Somlo; Mark T Wakabayashi
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 8.  What factors hinder the decision-making process for women with cancer and contemplating fertility preservation treatment?

Authors:  Georgina Jones; Jane Hughes; Neda Mahmoodi; Emily Smith; Jonathan Skull; William Ledger
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 15.610

9.  Health disparities and infertility: impacts of state-level insurance mandates.

Authors:  Marianne Bitler; Lucie Schmidt
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Infertility service use in the United States: data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 1982-2010.

Authors:  Anjani Chandra; Casey E Copen; Elizabeth Hervey Stephen
Journal:  Natl Health Stat Report       Date:  2014-01-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.