Dataset Information

Condition, disease, disability: how the label used to describe infertility may affect public support for fertility treatment coverage.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To assess public attitudes towards fertility treatment coverage and whether attitudes are influenced by infertility labels.

Methods

Cross-sectional, web survey-based experiment using a national sample of 1226 United States adults. Participants read identical descriptions about infertility, with the exception of random assignment to infertility being labeled as a "condition," "disease," or "disability." Participants then responded to questions measuring their beliefs and attitudes towards policies related to the diagnosis and treatment of infertility. We measured public support for infertility policies, public preference for infertility labels, and whether support differed by the randomly assigned label used. We also queried associations between demographic data and support for infertility policies.

Results

Support was higher for insurance coverage of infertility treatments (p=.014) and fertility preservation (p=.017), and infertility public assistance programs (p=.036) when infertility was described as a "disease" or "disability" compared to "condition." Participants who were younger, were planning or trying to conceive, had a family member or friend with infertility, and/or had a more liberal political outlook were more likely to support infertility policies. A majority of participants (78%) felt the term "condition" was the best label to describe infertility, followed by "disability" (12%). The least popular label was "disease" (10%). Those preferring "condition" were older (p<.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic White (p=.046), and less likely to have an infertility diagnosis (p<.001).

Conclusion

While less commonly identified as the best descriptors of infertility, labeling infertility as a "disease" or "disability" may increase support for policies that improve access to infertility care.

SUBMITTER: Mancuso AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8149289 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesNeuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are a core feature of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias that are characterized by a fluctuating course. NPS are challenging to manage and contribute to high rates of burden among family caregivers. Successful information exchange between clinicians and family caregivers is critical for facilitating effective management of NPS. However, this communication is often challenging due to inconsistent terminology and classification of symptoms and limited understanding of how family caregivers recognize and describe symptoms. The objective of this study was to examine the language family caregivers' use to describe and contextualize NPS.Research design and methodsDescriptive qualitative study of 20 family caregivers in a mostly urban county in the Midwestern United States using semistructured interviews. Caregiver descriptions of NPS were analyzed using directed content and text analysis to examine terminology, followed by a thematic analysis approach to examine contextualization of NPS.ResultsCaregivers employed shared terminologies to describe NPS that differed substantially from clinical terminology used to classify symptoms. Caregivers frequently engaged sense-making as a strategy to explain NPS. This sense-making served to contextualize patterns in behavior and was characterized by explanatory, situational, and strategy-oriented frameworks for understanding behavior in terms of its purpose and meaning. Caregivers' descriptions of NPS reflected broad overlap between individual NPS (i.e., agitation and care resistance) that would generally be considered clinically distinct symptoms.Discussion and implicationsNomenclature surrounding NPS may vary considerably between family caregivers and clinicians, and should be evaluated in partnership with people with dementia and their caregivers to ensure supportive interventions and resources are responsive to caregivers' interpretation of symptoms and sense-making.

Project description:ObjectivesStudy the proportion of patients affected by involuntary childlessness who are denied fertility treatment and the reasons behind this in a publicly funded healthcare system.DesignSurvey study using prospectively collected information by healthcare professionals.SettingTwo university-affiliated fertility clinics in Sweden.ParticipantsSingle women and couples in heterosexual and homosexual relationships seeking fertility evaluation and treatment between November 2017 and April 2018 (943 individual cases).Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumber and proportion of individuals who were either denied, delayed or granted fertility treatment directly. Furthermore, the reasons behind delaying or completely withholding treatment.ResultsThe majority of those seeking evaluation were heterosexual couples (75%), while 14% were single women and 7.5% were same-sex couples. The great majority of those undergoing evaluation were granted treatment either directly (85%) or after in-depth evaluation (7.5%), while 7.5% were denied treatment. Among those who were denied treatment, there were a greater proportion of single women and couples seeking treatment with donated gametes. Among heterosexual couples, gamete origin was not associated with treatment refusal. Although age did not differ between those granted and denied treatment, a higher body mass index (in both recipient and partner, when applicable) was observed among those being refused treatment. Fertility specialists in Sweden focused their assessment on parental factors that may indirectly entail a risk of harm to the future child, such as medical and psychiatric conditions of the individuals involved, their financial constraints and other social reasons, substance abuse and female obesity.ConclusionBeing single or receiving treatment with donated gametes can both be reasons for withholding fertility treatment. Although difficult to operationalise, parenting assessment in Sweden is employed interchangeably in treatments with donated gametes (legally mandated assessment) and even autologous gametes (non-legally mandated assessment)-making evident a need for clear official policy guidelines regulating these assessments and the provision of treatment.