Estimates of Lifetime Infertility from Three States: the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

Overview

Journal J Womens Health (Larchmt)

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2015 Jul 15

PMID 26172998

Citations 7

Authors

Sara Crawford

Chris Fussman

Marie Bailey

Dana Bernson

Denise J Jamieson

Melissa Murray-Jordan

Dmitry M Kissin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Infertility prevalence and the methods of estimation from 1990 to 2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cox C, Thoma M, Tchangalova N, Mburu G, Bornstein M, Johnson C Hum Reprod Open. 2022; 2022(4):hoac051.

PMID: 36483694 PMC: 9725182. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac051.

International Natural Procreative Technology Evaluation and Surveillance of Treatment for Subfertility (iNEST): enrollment and methods.

Stanford J, Parnell T, Kantor K, Reeder M, Najmabadi S, Johnson K Hum Reprod Open. 2022; 2022(3):hoac033.

PMID: 35974874 PMC: 9373967. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac033.

Fertility and Birth Outcomes in Women With Epilepsy Seeking Pregnancy.

Pennell P, French J, Harden C, Davis A, Bagiella E, Andreopoulos E JAMA Neurol. 2018; 75(8):962-969.

PMID: 29710218 PMC: 6142930. DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.0646.

Estimating infertility prevalence in low-to-middle-income countries: an application of a current duration approach to Demographic and Health Survey data.

Polis C, Cox C, Tuncalp O, McLain A, Thoma M Hum Reprod. 2017; 32(5):1064-1074.

PMID: 28204493 PMC: 5400046. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex025.

Risks Factors and Treatment Use Related to Infertility and Impaired Fecundity Among Reproductive-Aged Women.

Crawford S, Smith R, Kuwabara S, Grigorescu V J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017; 26(5):500-510.

PMID: 28186831 PMC: 5576020. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6052.

References

Sunderam S, Kissin D, Flowers L, Anderson J, Folger S, Jamieson D . Assisted reproductive technology surveillance--United States, 2009. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2012; 61(7):1-23. View

Kulkarni A, Jamieson D, Jones Jr H, Kissin D, Gallo M, Macaluso M . Fertility treatments and multiple births in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(23):2218-25. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301467. View

Vloeberghs V, Peeraer K, Pexsters A, DHooghe T . Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and complications of ART. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 23(5):691-709. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.02.006. View

Mascarenhas M, Flaxman S, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens G . National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012; 9(12):e1001356. PMC: 3525527. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356. View

Merritt T, Goldstein M, Philips R, Peverini R, Iwakoshi J, Rodriguez A . Impact of ART on pregnancies in California: an analysis of maternity outcomes and insights into the added burden of neonatal intensive care. J Perinatol. 2014; 34(5):345-50. DOI: 10.1038/jp.2014.17. View

Lemos E, Zhang D, Van Voorhis B, Hu X . Healthcare expenses associated with multiple vs singleton pregnancies in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209(6):586.e1-586.e11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.005. View

Olive D, Pritts E . Estimating infertility: the devil is in the details. Fertil Steril. 2006; 86(3):529-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.026. View

Caserta D, Bordi G, Stegagno M, Filippini F, Podagrosi M, Roselli D . Maternal and perinatal outcomes in spontaneous versus assisted conception twin pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 174:64-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.011. View

Chandra A, Copen C, Stephen E . Infertility and impaired fecundity in the United States, 1982-2010: data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Natl Health Stat Report. 2014; (67):1-18, 1 p following 19. View

10.

Wu A, Elliott P, Katz P, Smith J . Time costs of fertility care: the hidden hardship of building a family. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(7):2025-30. PMC: 3736984. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.145. View

11.

Kissin D, Jamieson D, Barfield W . Monitoring health outcomes of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(1):91-3. PMC: 4607032. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1404371. View

12.

Mneimneh A, Boulet S, Sunderam S, Zhang Y, Jamieson D, Crawford S . States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (SMART) Collaborative: data collection, linkage, dissemination, and use. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013; 22(7):571-7. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2013.4452. View

13.

Macaluso M, Wright-Schnapp T, Chandra A, Johnson R, Satterwhite C, Pulver A . A public health focus on infertility prevention, detection, and management. Fertil Steril. 2008; 93(1):16.e1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.046. View

14.

Wu A, Odisho A, Washington 3rd S, Katz P, Smith J . Out-of-pocket fertility patient expense: data from a multicenter prospective infertility cohort. J Urol. 2013; 191(2):427-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.08.083. View

15.

Thornton K, Goldman M . Impact of subgroup analysis on estimates of infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006; 86(3):531-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.028. View

16.

Thoma M, McLain A, Louis J, King R, Trumble A, Sundaram R . Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(5):1324-1331.e1. PMC: 3615032. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.037. View