Cited by 166Reproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Health and ContraceptionDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences

Use of infertility services in the United States: 1995

Stephen, Elizabeth Hervey, Chandra, Anjani·2000·Family Planning Perspectives

Abstract

CONTEXT: Both the demand for and the availability of infertility services in the United States increased during the 1980s and early 1990s. Understanding the factors that are related to service-seeking among women with current fertility problems would aid efforts to better provide services. METHODOLOGY: Data on U.S. women's use of infertility services were taken from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, a nationally representative survey of 10,847 women aged 15-44. For the 1,210 women who at the time of the interview reported having fertility problems, multivariate statistical modeling was used to identify the characteristics associated with their use of infertility services. RESULTS: Of the 6.7 million women with fertility problems in 1995, 42% had received some form of infertility services. The most common services ever received among these women were advice (60%) and diagnostic tests (50%), medical help to prevent miscarriage (44%) and drugs to induce ovulation (35%). The proportions of fertility-impaired women who had ever received infertility services were generally highest among those who were older, who had ever been married, who had graduated from college, who had a high income and who were non-Hispanic white. Multivariate analyses reveal that apparent differences by age and race or ethnicity in the unadjusted analysis disappear once the effects of women's marital status, income and private health insurance coverage are taken into account. CONCLUSION: Women who have ever used infertility services continue to represent a select group from among those with impaired fertility. Moreover, the vast majority of women with fertility problems who seek services receive noninvasive treatments that could be considered "low technology" interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2648162

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 [12]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 5 · Cited by 166

Authors
Stephen, E. H., & Chandra, A.
Affiliations
Georgetown University (US)
Venue
Family Planning Perspectives
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
2000-05
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
132
ISSN
0014-7354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W158639723
Cited by
166
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 15
FWCI
3.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Planning Perspectives (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Gender Studies › Demographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Keywords
infertility services, service utilization, fertility problems, barriers to care, marital status, income, private health insurance, racial and ethnic differences, ovulation induction, miscarriage prevention, National Survey of Family Growth
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Infertility, Female, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproductive Techniques, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Women, Women's Health Services, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Health Care Surveys, Needs Assessment

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