Emma Skovgaard Pedersen, Ellen M Mikkelsen, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Elizabeth E Hatch, Lauren A Wise, Kenneth J Rothman, Joseph B Stanford, Anne Sofie Dam Laursen
{"title":"The association between the use of fertility indicators and fecundability in a Danish preconception cohort.","authors":"Emma Skovgaard Pedersen, Ellen M Mikkelsen, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Elizabeth E Hatch, Lauren A Wise, Kenneth J Rothman, Joseph B Stanford, Anne Sofie Dam Laursen","doi":"10.1111/ppe.13108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of fertility indicators to predict ovulation has largely been studied for contraceptive purposes, while less so as fertility-promoting tools.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the association between fertility indicators and fecundability in Danish women trying to conceive.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Web-based preconception cohort study. We analysed data from 11,328 females aged 18-49 years trying to conceive without fertility treatment for ≤6 menstrual cycles, from the Danish SnartGravid.dk and SnartForældre.dk cohorts (2007-2023). Participants reported the use of fertility indicators (counting days since the last menstrual period, cervical fluid monitoring, urinary ovulation testing, feeling ovulation, using a smartphone fertility app and measuring basal body temperature [BBT]). Time to pregnancy was measured in menstrual cycles ascertained by self-reported pregnancy status. We estimated fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using proportional probabilities regression models adjusted for age, socio-economic position, health indicators, reproductive history and gynaecological factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fertility indicators were used by 63.3% of participants at study entry. Counting days was the most common (46.9%), while measuring BBT was the least (3.0%). Other indicators ranged from 17.0% to 23.6%, with 69.7% using more than one indicator. Compared with non-use, use of any fertility indicator was associated with greater fecundability (adjusted FR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08, 1.19). Cervical fluid monitoring showed the strongest association (aFR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03, 2.07), followed by urinary ovulation testing (aFR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16, 1.58) and counting days (aFR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09, 1.29). Feeling ovulation and fertility apps were modestly associated with fecundability, while measuring BBT was not associated. Sensitivity analysis restricting to ≤2 cycles of attempt time and two cycles of follow-up showed an aFR for any indicator use of 1.21 (95% CI 1.13, 1.31).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this Danish preconception cohort, use of fertility indicators was associated with a higher fecundability, varying by type of indicator.</p>","PeriodicalId":19698,"journal":{"name":"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"641-650"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.13108","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The use of fertility indicators to predict ovulation has largely been studied for contraceptive purposes, while less so as fertility-promoting tools.
Objective: To investigate the association between fertility indicators and fecundability in Danish women trying to conceive.
Methods: Web-based preconception cohort study. We analysed data from 11,328 females aged 18-49 years trying to conceive without fertility treatment for ≤6 menstrual cycles, from the Danish SnartGravid.dk and SnartForældre.dk cohorts (2007-2023). Participants reported the use of fertility indicators (counting days since the last menstrual period, cervical fluid monitoring, urinary ovulation testing, feeling ovulation, using a smartphone fertility app and measuring basal body temperature [BBT]). Time to pregnancy was measured in menstrual cycles ascertained by self-reported pregnancy status. We estimated fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using proportional probabilities regression models adjusted for age, socio-economic position, health indicators, reproductive history and gynaecological factors.
Results: Fertility indicators were used by 63.3% of participants at study entry. Counting days was the most common (46.9%), while measuring BBT was the least (3.0%). Other indicators ranged from 17.0% to 23.6%, with 69.7% using more than one indicator. Compared with non-use, use of any fertility indicator was associated with greater fecundability (adjusted FR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08, 1.19). Cervical fluid monitoring showed the strongest association (aFR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03, 2.07), followed by urinary ovulation testing (aFR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16, 1.58) and counting days (aFR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09, 1.29). Feeling ovulation and fertility apps were modestly associated with fecundability, while measuring BBT was not associated. Sensitivity analysis restricting to ≤2 cycles of attempt time and two cycles of follow-up showed an aFR for any indicator use of 1.21 (95% CI 1.13, 1.31).
Conclusion: In this Danish preconception cohort, use of fertility indicators was associated with a higher fecundability, varying by type of indicator.
期刊介绍：
Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology crosses the boundaries between the epidemiologist and the paediatrician, obstetrician or specialist in child health, ensuring that important paediatric and perinatal studies reach those clinicians for whom the results are especially relevant. In addition to original research articles, the Journal also includes commentaries, book reviews and annotations.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
