4.7 Article

The other side of the fertility coin: a comparison of childless men's and women's knowledge of fertility and assisted reproductive technology

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 99, Issue 3, Pages 839-846

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.10.033

Keywords

Fertility knowledge; ART knowledge; delayed childbearing

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Assisted Human Reproduction Canada [PAH-103594]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine childless men's knowledge about fertility and assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments and family building options, compared to knowledge of a sample of childless women. Design: Self-report questionnaire comprising 2 self-ratings and 20 knowledge questions related to later childbearing and ART. Setting: Online survey. Patient(s): A total of 599 presumed fertile, childless men between the ages of 20 and 50 years. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Knowledge of fertility and ART as measured by the male version of the Fertility Awareness Survey. Result(s): The majority of participants rated themselves as having some knowledge or being fairly knowledgeable about fertility and ART. However, on the 20 knowledge questions, overall knowledge was limited, with more than 50% of the sample answering correctly only 4 of 20 knowledge questions. The men demonstrated even less knowledge of fertility and ART than childless women. Conclusion(s): Given that the childless men in our study had no coherent body of knowledge regarding age-related fertility and ART treatment and family-building options, men may be contributing to the trend to delay childbearing. If they are to be effective in supporting informed fertility and childbearing decisions, education programs must target both women and men. (Fertil Steril (R) 2013;99:839-46. (C) 2013 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available