Access to infertility care in a low-resource setting: bridging the gap through resident and fellow education in a New York City public hospital

Epidemiological characteristics of infertility, 1990-2021, and 15-year forecasts: an analysis based on the global burden of disease study 2021

BACKGROUND

Infertility, defined as the inability to achieve pregnancy after 1 year of regular unprotected intercourse, affects approximately 186 million people globally, with consistent prevalence across different income levels. Globally, the rising infertility rates are impacting population growth and individual quality of life. Infertility is not just a personal issue but also a public health concern, with social and economic implications, including stigmatization, marital discord, and mental strain. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated mental health issues among individuals with infertility, underscoring the need for research into the mental health impacts and access to fertility services. Economically, infertility poses a significant financial burden, especially in regions where Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) costs can be up to 200% of the GDP per capita. Understanding the complexities and spread of infertility is essential for guiding policy decisions and program rollouts, with studies analyzing infertility issues based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database.

METHODS

The study leverages data from the GBD 2021, encompassing 371 conditions or injuries and 88 risk factors across 204 nations. It examines prevalence, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), age-standardized prevalence rate (ASPR), and age-standardized DALYs rate (ASDR) for infertility, categorized by sex, age, regions, and nations. The Social and Demographic Index (SDI), reflecting socio-economic levels, is used to analyze its correlation with infertility burden. The study employs decomposition analysis and frontier analysis methods to assess changes in infertility prevalence and DALYs, and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to confirm relationships between age-standardized rates (ASRs) and SDI. The estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) of rates, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), was calculated.

RESULTS

In 2021, it was calculated that the global ASPR for male infertility stood at 1354.76 cases per 100,000 individuals, with a 95% Uncertainty Interval ranging from 802.12 to 2174.77 cases per 100,000 individuals. For female infertility, the ASPR was recorded at 2764.62 per 100,000 individuals (95% UI: 1476.33-4862.57 per 100,000 individuals). Between 1990 and 2021, the EAPC in ASPR was observed to be 0.5% (95% CI 0.36-0.64) for males and 0.7% (95% CI 0.53-0.87) for females. In that same year, the global ASDR attributed to male infertility was 7.84 per 100,000 individuals (95% UI: 2.85-18.56 per 100,000 individuals), while for female infertility, it amounted to 15.12 per 100,000 individuals (95% UI: 5.35-36.88 per 100,000 individuals). The EAPC for ASDR linked to male and female infertility from 1990 to 2021 was assessed at 0.51% (95% CI 0.38-0.65) and 0.71% (95% CI 0.54-0.88), respectively. Among the 204 countries and territories in 2021, India ranked first in both the prevalence of cases and DALYs associated with male and female infertility, followed by China and Indonesia. Additionally, the investigation revealed a slight negative correlation between the ASPR and ASDR of infertility and the SDI. Decomposition analysis indicated that approximately 65% of the rise in the global burden of infertility could be attributed to population growth. Frontier analysis suggested that the variations in efficiency frontiers across specific SDI levels diminish as the SDI increases. Looking forward, the study projects a global rise in ASPR and ASDR for infertility between 2022 and 2036.

CONCLUSIONS

The worldwide prevalence of infertility has substantially increased between 1990 and 2021, largely as a result of population growth. This trend highlights the pressing necessity for better strategies concerning prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, particularly in low and middle-income nations. Strengthening healthcare infrastructures, enhancing access to high-quality medical services, and raising awareness about infertility are vital measures to tackle this issue. The results of the study offer essential information to help policymakers and health officials formulate targeted strategies for the prevention and management of infertility.

Moonshot. Long shot. Or sure shot. What needs to happen to realize the full potential of AI in the fertility sector?

Quality healthcare requires two critical components: patients' best interests and best decisions to achieve that goal. The first goal is the lodestar, unchanged and unchanging over time. The second component is a more dynamic and rapidly changing paradigm in healthcare. Clinical decision-making has transitioned from an opinion-based paradigm to an evidence-based and data-driven process. A realization that technology and artificial intelligence can bring value adds a third component to the decision process. And the fertility sector is not exempt. The debate about AI is front and centre in reproductive technologies. Launching the transition from a conventional provider-driven decision paradigm to a software-enhanced system requires a roadmap to enable effective and safe implementation. A key nodal point in the ascending arc of AI in the fertility sector is how and when to bring these innovations into the ART routine to improve workflow, outcomes, and bottom-line performance. The evolution of AI in other segments of clinical care would suggest that caution is needed as widespread adoption is urged from several fronts. But the lure and magnitude for the change that these tech tools hold for fertility care remain deeply engaging. Exploring factors that could enhance thoughtful implementation and progress towards a tipping point (or perhaps not) should be at the forefront of any 'next steps' strategy. The objective of this Opinion is to discuss four critical areas (among many) considered essential to successful uptake of any new technology. These four areas include value proposition, innovative disruption, clinical agency, and responsible computing.

Infertility care in an underserved population: A retrospective chart review of a resident-run clinic at an urban, public hospital

Despite major advances in infertility services, barriers to care as well as disparities in outcomes remain a significant problem. The cost of treatment, lack of or inadequate coverage, and location of infertility clinics are obvious contributors, however, advanced pathology, coexistent medical conditions, and lack of preconception care also contribute to delay in fertility particularly in underserved communities. Previous studies have discussed the role of trainee-run clinics in lower socioeconomic populations in providing low-cost infertility evaluation and management. This study uses a retrospective chart review to compare the etiology and duration of infertility in our patients to the general infertility patient population, to describe the coexistent medical pathologies within our population at initial presentation to infertility care, and to discuss how our clinic is addressing the gap in infertility care. PRECIS: Resident-run clinics offer a unique role in increasing access to care through preconception care and low-cost fertility treatment.

Moving toward Narrowing the United States Gap in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Next Decade

The Disparities in Assisted Reproductive Technology (DART) hypothesis, initially described in 2013 and further modified in 2022, is a conceptual framework to examine the scope and depth of underlying contributing factors to the differences in access and treatment outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities undergoing ART in the United States. In 2009, the World Health Organization defined infertility as a disease of the reproductive system, thus recognizing it as a medical problem warranting treatment. Now, infertility care is largely recognized as a human right. However, disparities in Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) care in the US persist today. While several studies and review articles have suggested possible solutions to racial and ethnic disparities in access and outcomes in ART, few have accounted for and addressed the multiple complex factors contributing to these disparities on a systemic level. This review aims to acknowledge and address the myriad of contributing factors through the DART hypothesis which converge in racial/ethnic disparities in ART and considers possible solutions to effect large scale societal change by narrowing these gaps within the next decade.

In vitro fertilization: a cross-sectional analysis of 58 US insurance companies

PURPOSE

Infertility affects one in eight women in the USA. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an effective but costly treatment that lacks uniform insurance coverage. We evaluated the current insurance coverage landscape for IVF in America.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 58 insurance companies with the greatest state enrollment and market share, calculated to represent the majority of Americans with health insurance. Individual companies were evaluated for a publicly available policy on IVF services by web-based search, telephone interview, or email to the insurer. Coverage status, required criteria, qualifying risk factors, and contraindications to coverage were extracted from available policies.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (88%) of the fifty-eight companies had a policy for IVF services. Thirty-five (69%) of these policies extended coverage. Case-by-case coverage was stated in seven policies (14%), while coverage was denied in the remaining nine (18%). The most common criterion to receive coverage was a documented diagnosis of infertility (n = 23, 66%), followed by care from a reproductive endocrinologist (n = 9, 26%). Twenty-three (45%) of the companies with a policy had at least one contraindication to coverage. Three companies (6%) limited the number of IVF cycles to be covered, capping payments after 3-4 lifetime cycles.

CONCLUSION

Most Americans with health insurance are provided a public policy regarding IVF. However, there is great variation in coverage and requirements to receive coverage between insurers. Coupled with inconsistencies in state-level mandates and available choices for employer-sponsored plans, this may limit coverage of IVF services and, therefore, access to infertility treatment.

Health Information Needs of Couples Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Techniques

Background

Couples undergoing Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ART) come across various information needs. This study aimed to identify the health information needs of couples undergoing ART.

Materials and Methods

The methodology of the present applied study was qualitative and the research method was conventional qualitative content analysis performed with the participation of 25 infertile couples under ART. The study took nine months (July 2020 to March 2021). The samples were objectively screened based on the criteria from the couples referred to the infertility center affiliated to Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences (Public) and Ome-Leila Specialized infertility clinic (Private) in Bandar Abbas (Iran). Data collection was performed by semi-structured interviews. The typical content analysis method was used in this research. Data analysis was carried out based on coding by the use of MAXQDA a software for qualitative and mixed methods data analysis.

Results

Information needs of couples under ART were categorized into three main categories and ten subcategories: 1) main cause of infertility [feminine or masculine cause, and etiology (nature and origin)], 2) treatment of infertility [identifying ART, treatment success rate, complications and risks (outcomes) of the treatment method, and treatment duration], and 3) healthcare [advice on medication, healthy nutrition (diet), sexual relations, and daily routine].

Conclusions

The results of this study emphasize that the country's health officials, especially those in charge of the healthcare of infertile couples under ART, must necessarily pay more attention to meeting the needs of this group of people in society.

Access to Fertility Care in Geographically Underserved Populations, a Second Look

Infertility has a prevalence of up to 16% worldwide and is on the rise in developed nations, largely due to pursuing childbearing at advanced reproductive ages. Advances in assisted reproductive technology have benefitted socioeconomically advantaged patients disproportionately. High costs of fertility care are largely responsible for this disparity; however, patients in rural areas also face barriers in accessing both gynecology and reproductive endocrinology subspecialty care. Here, focusing on the USA, we discuss fertility care in geographically underserved areas and low-resource settings, and the impact on reproductive outcomes. Increased innovation to improve patient access to fertility care such as assisted reproductive technology is critical for ensuring equity. Remote monitoring is frequently performed by fertility centers, but partnership with local gynecologists has also been demonstrated to be an effective assisted reproductive technology monitoring method. Telehealth is now in mainstream use and the continued application to reduce geographic barriers to infertility patients is imperative. Partnership between local gynecologists and reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists may improve patient access to fertility care and provide the unique benefits of continuity and ongoing local social support.

Provision of infertility care for the underserved in reproductive endocrinology and infertility practices associated with obstetrics and gynecology residency training programs in the United States

Objective

To survey practice patterns designed to increase access to infertility care and evaluate the exposure of obstetrics and gynecology residents to infertility care for the underserved.

Design

Cross-sectional.

Setting

Reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) practices associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited obstetrics and gynecology residency training programs.

Patient(s)

None.

Intervention(s)

Questionnaire survey.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Presence of clinical programs designed to improve access to REI care, resident involvement in such programs, and perceived barriers to expanding access to care.

Result(s)

Clinical initiatives to expand access included discounted infertility services (38%, n = 30), utilization of a low-cost in vitro fertilization (IVF) program (28%, n = 22), and utilization of a resident- and/or fellow-staffed clinic to provide infertility care (39%, n = 31). The most commonly discounted infertility services were IVF (73%, n = 22), clinical consultation (70%, n = 21), and intrauterine insemination (53%, n = 16). The provision of discounted prices was correlated with the increasing practice size (odds ratio [OR], 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23–4.24) and number of assisted reproductive technology cycles performed annually (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.48–9.02). Academic REI practices (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.98–13.25) were more likely to have a low-cost IVF program. Less than half of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs (39%, n = 31) had an associated REI clinic in which obstetrics and gynecology residents provide direct infertility care to the medically underserved. Frequency and services offered in trainee clinics varied. Multiple barriers to expanding access to care were reported.

Conclusion(s)

Reproductive endocrinology and infertility practices associated with obstetrics and gynecology residency programs utilize a diverse range of approaches to provide infertility care to the underserved in the backdrop of considerable challenges and barriers, but significant gaps persist.

See one, do one, teach one: Reimagining reproductive endocrinology and infertility training programs to expand access to care

Objective

To provide a review of the current literature surrounding barriers to reproductive medicine and present examples of how resident and fellow education can be used to overcome these barriers.

Design

A review of the relevant literature addressing barriers to reproductive medicine, resident and fellow education, and related materials was completed.

Setting

Academic medical institutions.

Patient(s)

None.

Intervention(s)

None.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Health disparities and barriers in access to care.

Result(s)

Of barriers in access to care, 3 were reviewed in detail: cost of health care, racial inequities, and marginalization of immigrant communities. The suggested strategies to mitigate these barriers include the following: reducing racial inequities through improved diversity within reproductive medicine and through antiracism training, developing opportunities for trainees to engage in advocacy, strengthening reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinical exposure and educational curricula in training programs, inclusion of residents and fellows in clinical care, and improving the accessibility of fertility care through implementing approaches to optimize the management of infertility in challenging, resource-constrained settings.

Conclusion(s)

Infertility is one of the most prevalent reproductive health diseases, yet profound disparities and inequities in access to care exist today in the United States. Lower-income, minority, and immigrant communities are among those most marginalized. Improved access to care begins with broadened obstetrics and gynecology and reproductive endocrinology and infertility trainee education, which acknowledges the barriers these communities face and provides strategies to help overcome these obstacles to care.

Health disparities of African Americans in reproductive medicine

The first paper describing an association between African American race, infertility prevalence, and outcomes of fertility treatments was published more than 20 years ago, calling initial attention to differences in how infertility is experienced, diagnosed, and managed in African Americans. Since that initial publication, multiple other studies have explored African American race and its association with elements of the fertility spectrum-disparities that have been durable over time. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the evolution of aspects of this research focusing on the outcomes of infertility treatments and barriers to access. A consideration of the system-based practice issues that interface with timely fertility evaluation and treatment in ways that challenge reproductive health equity will be presented.

Equal opportunity for all? An analysis of race and ethnicity in fertility preservation in New York City

Purpose

To compare the racial and ethnic make-up of patients who accessed medically indicated fertility preservation services (MIFP) against the overall racial diversity (including Hispanic origin) across women of reproductive age diagnosed with cancer in New York City (NYC).

Methods

All patients who completed at least one MIFP between January 2017 and December 2018 were reviewed. Race was self-reported. A calculation of the expected racial distribution across women of reproductive age with cancer in NYC was determined using the most recent NYC census data. Statistical analysis included chi-square goodness of fit and test for independence and Kruskal-Wallis H test, with p < 0.05 considered significant.

Results

A total of 107 patients who accessed MIFP were included. A total of 55 (51.4%) identified as White, 3 (2.8%) as Black, 13 (12.2%) as Asian, 6 (5.6%) as Hispanic, 3 (2.8%) as other, and 27 (25.2%) did not report. A total of 78.5% of patients had insurance. There was no significant difference in racial distribution by cancer type (p = 0.255). A subgroup analysis excluding the BRCA+ patients and races not reported by the census (n = 69) was then performed, showing a statistically significant difference between observed (O) and expected (E) cases of fertility preservation (FP) by race at our center—White 47O/32E, Black 3O/15E, Asian 13O/7E, and Hispanic 6O/15E (p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference in racial distribution by FP type was observed.

Conclusions

There is a difference in the observed vs expected racial distribution of patients accessing MIFP. Further studies are needed to identify modifiable factors to better ensure equal opportunity to all patients.