Dataset Information

Men and infertility in The Gambia: Limited biomedical knowledge and awareness discourage male involvement and exacerbate gender-based impacts of infertility.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Infertility in Sub-Saharan Africa constitutes an important social and public health problem. Yet, there is a paucity of research on the experiences of men living with infertility, especially in West Africa. This study explored men's aetiological knowledge, views and experiences of infertility in the West Coast region of The Gambia, West Africa.

Methodology

An explorative qualitative study was conducted among men living in the rural and urban communities of the West Coast region of The Gambia using in-depth interviews. Data collection and analysis were performed concurrently, and thematic data analysis was an iterative process carried out using NVivo 11 Analysis Software.

Results

Gambian men had generally poor knowledge of infertility, allocating it to God, spiritual powers and bodily (biomedical) factors. While societal norms meant that infertility was generally attributed to women, some men allocated male-factor infertility to poor sperm quality and impotence. Infertility threatened participants' sense of masculinity and resulted in psychosocial distress, including stigma, feelings of isolation, and low self-esteem.

Conclusion

Normative gendered frameworks of infertility result in high levels of female responsibilisation in the Gambian context. Yet men diagnosed with infertility experience significant, often unrecognized, psychological and social distress. We therefore call for increased attention to male-factor infertility, and the promotion of male engagement with infertility-care and services, both of which are essential for successfully addressing infertility and it's psychosocial consequences in The Gambia.

SUBMITTER: Dierickx S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8629172 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.Main outcome measuresPerceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).Results4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.ConclusionsWe found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.

Project description:BackgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and several types of neurodegeneration, including Alzheimer's, are linked to insulin-resistance, and chronic high dietary fat intake causes T2DM with mild neurodegeneration. Intra-cerebral Streptozotocin, a nitrosamine-related compound, causes neurodegeneration, whereas peripheral treatment causes DM.HypothesisLimited early exposures to nitrosamines that are widely present in the environment, enhance the deleterious effects of high fat intake in promoting T2DM and neurodegeneration.MethodsLong Evans rat pups were treated with N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) by i.p. injection, and upon weaning, they were fed with high fat (60%; HFD) or low fat (5%; LFD) chow for 8 weeks. Cerebella were harvested to assess gene expression, and insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) deficiency and resistance in the context of neurodegeneration.ResultsHFD +/- NDEA caused T2DM, neurodegeneration with impairments in brain insulin, insulin receptor, IGF-2 receptor, or insulin receptor substrate gene expression, and reduced expression of tau and choline acetyltransferase (ChAT), which are regulated by insulin and IGF-1. In addition, increased levels of 4-hydroxynonenal and nitrotyrosine were measured in cerebella of HFD +/- NDEA treated rats, and overall, NDEA+HFD treatment reduced brain levels of Tau, phospho-GSK-3beta (reflecting increased GSK-3beta activity), glial fibrillary acidic protein, and ChAT to greater degrees than either treatment alone. Finally, pro-ceramide genes, examined because ceramides cause insulin resistance, oxidative stress, and neurodegeneration, were significantly up-regulated by HFD and/or NDEA exposure, but the highest levels were generally present in brains of HFD+NDEA treated rats.ConclusionsEarly limited exposure to nitrosamines exacerbates the adverse effects of later chronic high dietary fat intake in promoting T2DM and neurodegeneration. The mechanism involves increased generation of ceramides and probably other toxic lipids in brain.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Gender is an important social determinant, that influences healthcare. The lack of awareness on how gender influences health might lead to gender bias and can contribute to substandard patient care. Our objectives were to assess gender sensitivity and the presence of gender stereotypes among swiss medical students. METHODS:A validated scale (N-GAMS - Nijmegen Gender Awareness in Medicine Scale), with 3 subscores assessing gender sensitivity (GS) and gender stereotypes toward patients (GRIP) and doctors (GRID) (ranging from 1 to 5), was translated into French and was distributed to all medical students registered at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland in April-May 2017. Reliability of the three subscales was assessed calculating the alpha Cronbach coefficient. Mean subscales were calculated for male and female students and compared using two sample t-tests. A linear model was built with each subscale as a dependent variable and students' sex and age as covariables. RESULTS:In total, 396 students answered the N-GAMS questionnaire, their mean age was 22?years old, 62.6% of them were women. GS and GRID sub-scores were not significantly different between female and male students (GS 3.62 for women, 3.70 for men, p =?0.27, GRID 2.10 for women, 2.13 for men, p =?0.76). A statistically significant difference was found in the GRIP subscale, with a mean score of 1.83 for women and 2.07 for men (p <?0.001), which suggests a more gender stereotyped opinion toward patients among male students. A trend was observed with age, gender sensibility increased (p?<?0.001) and stereotypes decreased (GRIP p =?0.04, GRID p =?0.02) with students getting older. CONCLUSION:Medical students' gender sensitivity seems to improve throughout the medical curriculum, and women students have less stereotypes towards patients than men do. The implementation of a gender-sensitive teaching in the medical curriculum could improve students' knowledge, limit gender bias and improve patients' care.

Project description:Increasing biomedical workforce diversity remains a persistent challenge. Recent reports have shown that biomedical sciences (BMS) graduate students become less interested in faculty careers as training progresses; however, it is unclear whether or how the career preferences of women and underrepresented minority (URM) scientists change in manners distinct from their better-represented peers. We report results from a survey of 1500 recent American BMS Ph.D. graduates (including 276 URMs) that examined career preferences over the course of their graduate training experiences. On average, scientists from all social backgrounds showed significantly decreased interest in faculty careers at research universities, and significantly increased interest in non-research careers at Ph.D. completion relative to entry. However, group differences emerged in overall levels of interest (at Ph.D. entry and completion), and the magnitude of change in interest in these careers. Multiple logistic regression showed that when controlling for career pathway interest at Ph.D. entry, first-author publication rate, faculty support, research self-efficacy, and graduate training experiences, differences in career pathway interest between social identity groups persisted. All groups were less likely than men from well-represented (WR) racial/ethnic backgrounds to report high interest in faculty careers at research-intensive universities (URM men: OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36-0.98, p = 0.04; WR women: OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47-0.89, p = 0.008; URM women: OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30-0.71, p<0.001), and URM women were more likely than all other groups to report high interest in non-research careers (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.28-2.90, p = 0.002). The persistence of disparities in the career interests of Ph.D. recipients suggests that a supply-side (or "pipeline") framing of biomedical workforce diversity challenges may limit the effectiveness of efforts to attract and retain the best and most diverse workforce. We propose incorporation of an ecological perspective of career development when considering strategies to enhance the biomedical workforce and professoriate through diversity.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate authors' awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.DesignA cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were 'very familiar' with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was 'sometimes' or 'frequently' encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).ConclusionsDespite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors.