4.7 Article

Geographic access to assisted reproductive technology health care in the United States: a population-based cross-sectional study

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 107, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.101

关键词

Infertility; access to care; geography

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development award [K12 HD063087]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the geographic distribution of assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics and the number of ART clinics within U.S. Census metropolitan areas and to estimate the number of reproductive-age women who have geographic access to ART services in the United States. Design: A population-based cross-sectional study. Setting: Not applicable. Patient(s): None. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Number of U.S. reproductive-age women living in areas with no ART clinic, a single ART clinic, or more than one ART clinic. Result(s): There were 510 ART clinics in the United States in 2009-2013. Multiple ART clinics were present in 76 metropolitan areas (median population of 1.45 million people), where a total of 442 clinics were located. A single ART clinic was present in 68 metropolitan areas (median population of 454,000 people). Among U.S. reproductive-age women in 2010, 38.1 million (60.4% of the U.S. population) lived in an area with multiple ART clinics, 6.8 million (10.8% of the U.S. population) lived in an area with a single clinic, and 18.2 million (28.8% of the U.S. population) lived in an area (metropolitan and nonmetropolitan) with no ART clinics. Conclusion(s): Nearby geographic access to ART services is limited or absent for more than 25 million reproductive-age women (39.6% of the U.S. population) in the United States. This population estimate should spur continued policy and technological progress to increase access to ART services. (C) 2017 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据