Cited by 120Reproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Health and ContraceptionHealthcare Policy and Management

Utilization of infertility services: How much does money matter?

Open access
Farley Ordovensky Staniec, J., Webb, Natalie J.·2007·Health Services Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of financial access and other individual characteristics on the likelihood that a woman pursues infertility treatment and the choice of treatment type. DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. STUDY DESIGN: We use a binomial logit model to estimate the effects of financial access and individual characteristics on the likelihood that a woman pursues infertility treatment. We then use a multinomial logit model to estimate the differential effects of these variables across treatment types. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHOD: This study analyzes the subset of 1,210 women who meet the definition of infertile or subfecund from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that income, insurance coverage, age, and parity (number of previous births) all significantly affect the probability of seeking infertility treatment; however, the effect of these variables on choice of treatment type varies significantly. Neither income nor insurance influences the probability of seeking advice, a relatively low cost, low yield treatment. At the other end of the spectrum, the choice to pursue assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs)-a much more expensive but potentially more productive option-is highly influenced by income, but merely having private insurance has no significant effect. In the middle of the spectrum are treatment options such as testing, surgery, and medications, for which "financial access" increases their probability of selection. CONCLUSIONS: Our results illustrate that for the sample of infertile of subfecund women of childbearing age studied, and considering their options, financial access to infertility treatment does matter.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00640.x

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women who seek a medical evaluation for infertility differ from women who do not on important demographic, lifestyle, and access factors.

    “Since women who seek a medical evaluation for infertility differ from those women who do not on important demographic, lifestyle, and access factors (Farland, under review for publication) (10–18) additional analyses of infertility type were conducted using male factor infertility as the reference group.”

    From Infertility, fertility treatment, and risk of hypertension (2015) · cites this paper as [14]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Plosker, S. M., W. Jacobson, and P. Amato. 1994. ''Predicting and Optimizing Success in an Intrauterine Insemination Program.'' Human Reproduction 9 (11): 2014-21.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farley Ordovensky Staniec, J., & Webb, N. J.
Affiliations
University of the Pacific (US)
Venue
Health Services Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09-25
Volume
42
Issue
3p1
Pages
971-989
ISSN
  • 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-6773
OpenAlex
W2084742322
Cited by
120
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Calhoun: The Naval Postgraduate School Institutional Archive (Naval Postgraduate School) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
infertility treatment, access to finance, health insurance coverage, income, treatment selection, assisted reproduction, parity, age, health care utilization, National Survey of Family Growth
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Choice Behavior, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Infertility, Female, Parity, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Pregnancy, United States, Models, Statistical, Logistic Models, Health Care Costs, Insurance Coverage, Health Care Surveys, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted, Reproductive Health Services

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review