Condition, disease, disability: how the label used to describe infertility may affect public support for fertility treatment coverage.
Ontology highlight
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
Similar Datasets
Project description:Whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing is becoming routine in clinical situations for identifying mutations underlying presumed genetic causes of disease including infertility. While this is a powerful approach for implicating polymorphisms or de novo mutations in genes plausibly related to the phenotype, a greater challenge is to definitively prove causality. This is a crucial requisite for treatment, especially for infertility, in which validation options are limited. In this study, we created a mouse model of a putative infertility allele, DMC1M200V. DMC1 encodes a RecA homolog essential for meiotic recombination and fertility in mice. This allele was originally implicated as being responsible for the sterility of a homozygous African woman, a conclusion supported by subsequent biochemical analyses of the mutant protein and by studies of yeast with the orthologous amino acid change. Here, we found that Dmc1M200V/M200V male and female mice are fully fertile and do not exhibit any gonadal abnormalities. Detailed immunocytological analysis of meiosis revealed no defects suggestive of compromised fertility. This study serves as a cautionary tale for making conclusions about consequences of genetic variants, especially with respect to infertility, and emphasizes the importance of conducting relevant biological assays for making accurate diagnoses in the era of genomic medicine.
| S-EPMC6216207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceWhen making coverage determinations for off-label prescribing, Medicare Part D recognizes 2 compendia: the American Hospital Formulary Service (AHFS) Drug Information and the DRUGDEX Information System. Deficiencies in the accuracy and completeness of these compendia could result in coverage denials for necessary, effective, evidence-based treatments.ObjectiveTo evaluate these compendia for dermatologic conditions, with a focus on less common conditions that often require systemic treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from July 1, 2018, through September 30, 2018. To identify diseases for which dermatologists may often need access to off-label systemic treatments, a list of 22 chronic, noninfectious, nonneoplastic diseases with at least 4 systemic therapies (including 1 in the first-line therapies and less than 25% approved by the US Food and Drug Administration) were selected for evaluation. With use of Treatment of Skin Disease, 5th Edition, a list of first-, second-, and third-line medications was created, including the level of evidence for each disease. A search of AHFS and DRUGDEX compendia was performed to evaluate for inclusion of the evidence-based therapies. In addition, the references cited in the compendia to justify inclusion of the therapy were examined qualitatively.Main outcomes and measuresPercentage of treatment options included in each compendium, stratified by level of evidence and position on the therapeutic ladder. Concordance between the 2 compendia was assessed using Cohen κ.ResultsOverall, 73 of 238 treatments (30.7%) evaluated were included in either compendium. Among individual diseases, 10 of 22 (45%) had 1 or fewer treatments included in the DRUGDEX compendium and 15 of 22 (68%) had 1 or fewer treatments included in the AHFS compendium. Discrepancies in which a medication was included in one compendium but not in the other compendium occurred for 53 of the 238 medications (22.3%) evaluated. Literature use did not follow a discernible pattern and was often based on decades-old sources.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that treatment options listed in these compendia are incomplete, outdated, idiosyncratic, and unpredictable. To ensure that patients can access treatments for their disease, it appears that policies to reduce the reliance on these compendia for coverage determinations should be developed.
| S-EPMC6439906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether biochemical or clinical markers of androgenic activity predict live birth rate with ovarian stimulation in the unexplained infertility population.DesignSecondary analysis of the Assessment of Multiple Intrauterine Gestations from Ovarian Stimulation (AMIGOS) clinical trial.SettingMulticenter university-based clinical practices.Patient(s)Nine hundred couples with unexplained infertility were included. Women were 18-40 years old with regular menses, a normal uterine cavity, at least one patent fallopian tube, and a male partner with ?5 million motile sperm. Women were randomized to receive gonadotropin, clomiphene, or letrozole with IUI for four or fewer four treatment cycles. Women were evaluated for biochemical (total testosterone, DHEAS, and free androgen index) and clinical markers of androgenic activity (sebum, acne, and hirsutism). Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for treatment group, maternal age, and body mass index were performed.Intervention(s)None.Main outcome measure(s)The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included conception, clinical pregnancy, and pregnancy loss.Result(s)When comparing 900 women in the AMIGOS trial based on quartiles of serum TT, women were of younger age, higher body mass index, and higher waist circumference with increasing TT. Increasing quartiles of TT also showed increasing DHEAS and free androgen index values. Serum androgens were not associated with outcomes of live birth, conception, clinical pregnancy, or pregnancy loss. Clinical androgen markers were not associated with pregnancy outcomes.Conclusion(s)In a randomized cohort of women with unexplained infertility, biochemical and clinical measures of androgens did not predict live birth rate after ovarian stimulation treatment.Clinical trial registration numberNCT 01044862.
| S-EPMC7088440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesThe language used to communicate important aspects of kidney health is inconsistent and may be conceptualized differently by patients and health professionals. These problems may impair the quality of communication, care, and patient outcomes. We aimed to describe the perspectives of patients on terms used to describe kidney health.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsPatients with CKD (n=54) and caregivers (n=13) from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia participated in ten focus groups to discuss terms for kidney health (including kidney, renal, CKD, ESKD, kidney failure, and descriptors for kidney function). We analyzed the data using thematic analysis.ResultsWe identified four themes: provoking and exacerbating undue trauma (fear of the unknown, denoting impending death, despair in having incurable or untreatable disease, premature labeling and assumptions, judgment, stigma, and failure of self); frustrated by ambiguity (confused by medicalized language, lacking personal relevance, baffled by imprecision in meaning, and/or opposed to obsolete terms); making sense of the prognostic enigma (conceptualizing level of kidney function, correlating with symptoms and effect on life, predicting progression, and need for intervention); and mobilizing self-management (confronting reality, enabling planning and preparation, taking ownership for change, learning medical terms for self-advocacy, and educating others).ConclusionsThe obscurity and imprecision of terms in CKD can be unduly distressing and traumatizing for patients, which can impair decision making and self-management. Consistent and meaningful patient-centered terminology may improve patient autonomy, satisfaction, and outcomes.
| S-EPMC7341768 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7362619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat is the scope of literature regarding infertility and fertility care indicators in terms of types and dimensions of these indicators?Summary answerMost available infertility and fertility care indicators are outcomes indicators of effectiveness and efficiency dimensions.What is known alreadyThe use of appropriate, relevant and valid indicators of infertility and fertility care is critical for monitoring access, equity and utilization.Study design size durationA systematic scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, Pubmed, JSTOR, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases from inception to May 2022 without imposing language or date restrictions. We searched gray literature and online libraries of relevant organizations. We hand-searched the list of relevant references.Participants/materials setting methodsThis scoping systematic review followed the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Records identified by the search were independently screened and data were extracted. We performed conceptual synthesis by grouping the reported indicators by typology and dimensions. Structured tabulation and graphical synthesis were used along with narrative commentary.Main results and the role of chanceWe included 46 reports from 88 countries. The reporting of infertility and fertility care indicators was voluntary in 63 countries (72%) and compulsory in 25 countries (28%). Reporting for cycles or deliveries was based on individual cycles in 56 countries (64%) and on cumulative cycles in 32 countries (36%). Most indicators were utilized as outcome indicators with fewer being process indicators or structural indicators. For the dimension of indicators, most indicators were utilized as effectiveness and efficiency indicators with fewer utilized as indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness.Limitations reasons for cautionMost indicators fall into the domain of assisted reproductive technology and are reported by fertility clinics. Indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness as well as non-clinical indicators are almost invisible.Wider implications of the findingsA wide range of indicators of infertility and fertility care exist in literature. Most indicators were effectiveness and efficiency indicators, while indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness remain almost invisible. The scope of the current indicators indicates a predominant focus on clinical metrics, with substantial invisibility of non-clinical indicators and indicators outside the ART domain. These gaps need to be considered in further work of identifying a core set of indicators.Study funding/competing interestsThis work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored program executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors had no competing interests.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework vsu42.
| S-EPMC9632452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To assess attitudes and factors that influence public opinion in the general US population toward insurance coverage and provision of infertility care to lower income patients. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Online. Patient(s) A nationally representative sample of US residents. Intervention(s) Questionnaire with multiple choice and open response questions. Main Outcome Measure(s) Public attitudes toward in vitro fertilization and infertility care coverage for lower income patients. Result(s) A total of 1,027 (90.2%) participants completed the survey, among whom 620 (60.4%) had private insurance, 275 (26.8%) had Medicare/Medicaid, and 56 (5.5%) were uninsured. The majority (916, 89.2%) did not consider infertility a disease. Over half of the respondents (568, 55.3%) supported private insurance coverage of infertility services, including for in vitro fertilization. Most respondents, 735 (71.6%) believed that the prevalence and psychosocial impact of infertility were equal among the lower and higher income people. The majority of respondents with an opinion (512, 67.6%) believed that doctors should provide infertility treatments regardless of the income level of the patients. Of supporters, 40.1% believed in the right to have a family regardless of income, and 38.2% believed that doctors had a social responsibility to provide infertility services. After adjusting for covariates, age <45 years, noncollege graduates, desiring more children, believing that infertility was a disease, and residence in the Northeast region remained significant predictors for support of private insurance coverage. Conclusion(s) Public perception of infertility as a disease is one of the strongest predictors of support for insurance coverage for infertility services, underscoring the need for enhanced advocacy and education in the general public.
| S-EPMC9349243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We tested the effect of prior vaccination on response to communication strategies in a hypothetical news article about an influenza pandemic. Vaccinated were more likely than nonvaccinated participants to plan future vaccination, and future vaccination intent was greater with certain communication strategies. Using these findings to target communication may increase vaccination rates.
| S-EPMC6433032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aim to evaluate the association between self-reported disabilities and infertility and whether disabilities are associated with decreased likelihood of seeking infertility-related care. This US nationally representative cross-sectional analysis includes 3789 non-pregnant women aged 18-49 years without history of hysterectomy or oophorectomy (NHANES, 2013-2018). Disabilities and infertility were both self-reported in personal interviews with trained interviewers. Logistic regression models estimated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals for the association between disabilities and infertility and related care seeking. Models adjusted for potential confounders and complex probability sampling. Compared to women without disabilities, women with disabilities (WWD) had higher odds of infertility (aOR: 1.78 (1.31-2.40)). Similar findings were observed for sensory (2.32 (1.52-3.52)) and cognitive disabilities (1.77 (1.28-2.44)). Among women with infertility, WWD were less likely to seek infertility-related care (0.68 (0.32-1.44)) but these estimates were not statistically significant. WWD have increased odds of reporting infertility, and if affected, are less likely to visit a health care provider for this condition. While more research is needed to understand reproductive health issues and needs among WWD, it is important to push for more equitable policies and practices to address the health needs of this underserved population.
| S-EPMC8003727 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7735088 | biostudies-literature