Fertility Physicians’ Opinions and Attitudes on Access to Assisted Reproductive Technology: An Asia-Pacific Perspective

R. Pawa, L. Udomsrisumran, S. Kiatpongsan
{"title":"Fertility Physicians’ Opinions and Attitudes on Access to Assisted Reproductive Technology: An Asia-Pacific Perspective","authors":"R. Pawa, L. Udomsrisumran, S. Kiatpongsan","doi":"10.1142/s2661318220500097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Fertility physicians are gatekeepers of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and have immediate control over access to fertility care. However, little is understood about their attitudes and willingness to provide and support different procedures. Therefore, we examined fertility physicians’ perspectives on support of public funding and willingness to provide care in various scenarios. Methods: We invited fertility physicians attending the 8th Congress of the Asia Pacific Initiative on Reproduction (ASPIRE 2018) to participate in a 10-minute survey. Participants completed the survey anonymously and in private. Results: 78 out of 105 fertility physicians from 12 countries completed the survey (response rate = 74.3%). Mean age was 44.9 years (SD = 11.1). A majority of respondents supported public funding for ART: 76.3% for intrauterine insemination and 80.5% for in vitro fertilization. For controversial procedures, a majority agreed to provide social egg freezing (88.5%) compared to sex selection (25.6%) and gene editing for nonmedical reasons (19.2%), p < 0.001 for both comparisons. Support for public funding was also significantly higher for social egg freezing (51.3%) compared to sex selection (23.1%) and gene editing for nonmedical reasons (20.5%), p < 0.001 for both comparisons. For eligibility criteria, willingness to provide treatment to single women (50.0%) was significantly higher compared to other nontraditional family structures — single men (33.3%), p < 0.001, male homosexual couples (33.3%), p = 0.002, female homosexual couples (32.1%), p = 0.001 and unmarried heterosexual couples (32.1%), p = 0.004. Consistently, support for public finding was significantly higher for single women (32.1%) compared to single men (23.1%), p = 0.013, male homosexual couples (20.5%), p = 0.020, and unmarried heterosexual couples (20.5%), p = 0.006. Conclusions: These results show support for public funding and conservative opinions toward ART for nontraditional family structures among physicians in the Asia-Pacific region.","PeriodicalId":34382,"journal":{"name":"Fertility Reproduction","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility Reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s2661318220500097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Fertility physicians are gatekeepers of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and have immediate control over access to fertility care. However, little is understood about their attitudes and willingness to provide and support different procedures. Therefore, we examined fertility physicians’ perspectives on support of public funding and willingness to provide care in various scenarios. Methods: We invited fertility physicians attending the 8th Congress of the Asia Pacific Initiative on Reproduction (ASPIRE 2018) to participate in a 10-minute survey. Participants completed the survey anonymously and in private. Results: 78 out of 105 fertility physicians from 12 countries completed the survey (response rate = 74.3%). Mean age was 44.9 years (SD = 11.1). A majority of respondents supported public funding for ART: 76.3% for intrauterine insemination and 80.5% for in vitro fertilization. For controversial procedures, a majority agreed to provide social egg freezing (88.5%) compared to sex selection (25.6%) and gene editing for nonmedical reasons (19.2%), p < 0.001 for both comparisons. Support for public funding was also significantly higher for social egg freezing (51.3%) compared to sex selection (23.1%) and gene editing for nonmedical reasons (20.5%), p < 0.001 for both comparisons. For eligibility criteria, willingness to provide treatment to single women (50.0%) was significantly higher compared to other nontraditional family structures — single men (33.3%), p < 0.001, male homosexual couples (33.3%), p = 0.002, female homosexual couples (32.1%), p = 0.001 and unmarried heterosexual couples (32.1%), p = 0.004. Consistently, support for public finding was significantly higher for single women (32.1%) compared to single men (23.1%), p = 0.013, male homosexual couples (20.5%), p = 0.020, and unmarried heterosexual couples (20.5%), p = 0.006. Conclusions: These results show support for public funding and conservative opinions toward ART for nontraditional family structures among physicians in the Asia-Pacific region.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
亚太地区生育医生对辅助生殖技术可及性的看法和态度
背景:生育医生是辅助生殖技术(ART)的守门人,对获得生育护理有直接的控制权。然而,人们对他们提供和支持不同程序的态度和意愿知之甚少。因此,我们调查了生育医生对公共资金支持的观点和在各种情况下提供护理的意愿。方法:我们邀请参加第八届亚太生殖倡议大会(ASPIRE 2018)的生育医生参与10分钟的调查。参与者以匿名方式私下完成了调查。结果:来自12个国家的105名生育医生中有78人完成了调查,回复率为74.3%。平均年龄44.9岁(SD = 11.1)。大多数应答者支持公共资金用于抗逆转录病毒治疗:76.3%的人支持宫内人工授精,80.5%的人支持体外受精。对于有争议的程序,大多数人同意提供社会卵子冷冻(88.5%),而性别选择(25.6%)和非医学原因的基因编辑(19.2%),两种比较的p < 0.001。与性别选择(23.1%)和非医学原因的基因编辑(20.5%)相比,社会卵子冷冻(51.3%)对公共资金的支持也明显更高,两种比较的p < 0.001。在资格标准方面,单身女性(50.0%)提供治疗的意愿显著高于其他非传统家庭结构——单身男性(33.3%),p < 0.001;男性同性恋伴侣(33.3%),p = 0.002;女性同性恋伴侣(32.1%),p = 0.001;未婚异性恋伴侣(32.1%),p = 0.004。与此同时,支持公开调查的单身女性(32.1%)明显高于单身男性(23.1%),p = 0.013,男性同性恋伴侣(20.5%),p = 0.020,未婚异性恋伴侣(20.5%),p = 0.006。结论:这些结果表明,亚太地区的医生支持公共资金,对非传统家庭结构的抗逆转录病毒治疗持保守态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Failures: Is It the Seed or the Soil? ASPIRE Guidelines for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Laboratory Practice in Low and Medium Resource Settings How Should We Assess the Endometrium of Infertile Patients? What Does the Future Look Like? Uterine Natural Killer Cells and Implantation Wisdom of Freezing All Valuable Embryos
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1