Family-building patterns of proceduralist and non-proceduralist physicians.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Amelia G Kelly, Morgan S Levy, Padmaja Sundaram, Alyssa D Brown, Alberto J Caban-Martinez, Roohi Jeelani, Vineet M Arora, Arghavan Salles
{"title":"Family-building patterns of proceduralist and non-proceduralist physicians.","authors":"Amelia G Kelly, Morgan S Levy, Padmaja Sundaram, Alyssa D Brown, Alberto J Caban-Martinez, Roohi Jeelani, Vineet M Arora, Arghavan Salles","doi":"10.1007/s10815-025-03611-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Little is known about differences in the risk of infertility, family-building patterns, and childcare habits of proceduralists compared to non-proceduralists. This cross-sectional study examines variations in family-building patterns and childcare habits between proceduralists and non-proceduralists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From April to May 2021, a convenience sample of medical students and physicians was recruited through social media and organizational listservs to complete a questionnaire as part of the Study of Physicians and Children: Expectations and Experiences (SPACE). Respondents reported their demographics and family-building path, if applicable. All physicians who indicated their specialty were included. Medical students were excluded. The primary outcomes of interest were the rates of infertility and utilization of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Secondary outcomes included family-building patterns and childcare habits. Procedural vs. non-procedural specialties were categorized based on previously published literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Including trainee physicians, there were 2519 physician respondents (80.8% of all respondents). The majority identified as women (n = 2246, 89.2%) and as heterosexual (n = 2204, 87.5%). There were 1103 (43.9%) proceduralists and 1416 (56.1%) non-proceduralists. The prevalence of infertility was similar across specialty type (26.8% proceduralists vs. 26.5% non-proceduralists, p = 0.66). The use of ART was higher among proceduralists (27.2% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.01). Proceduralists were more likely to have biological children during residency (38.6% vs. 27.3%, p < 0.001) and to be childless despite desiring biological children (38.2% vs. 35.2%, p < 0.001). For childcare, proceduralists were more likely to rely on nannies (50.2% vs. 41.6%, p < 0.002), while non-proceduralists were more likely to use daycare (60.8% vs. 49.4%, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates key differences in family-building patterns and the use of ART between procedural and non-procedural physicians. Such discrepancies suggest a need to better support physicians, especially those in procedural specialties, who want to have children by implementing more family-friendly policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":15246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-025-03611-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Little is known about differences in the risk of infertility, family-building patterns, and childcare habits of proceduralists compared to non-proceduralists. This cross-sectional study examines variations in family-building patterns and childcare habits between proceduralists and non-proceduralists.

Methods: From April to May 2021, a convenience sample of medical students and physicians was recruited through social media and organizational listservs to complete a questionnaire as part of the Study of Physicians and Children: Expectations and Experiences (SPACE). Respondents reported their demographics and family-building path, if applicable. All physicians who indicated their specialty were included. Medical students were excluded. The primary outcomes of interest were the rates of infertility and utilization of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Secondary outcomes included family-building patterns and childcare habits. Procedural vs. non-procedural specialties were categorized based on previously published literature.

Results: Including trainee physicians, there were 2519 physician respondents (80.8% of all respondents). The majority identified as women (n = 2246, 89.2%) and as heterosexual (n = 2204, 87.5%). There were 1103 (43.9%) proceduralists and 1416 (56.1%) non-proceduralists. The prevalence of infertility was similar across specialty type (26.8% proceduralists vs. 26.5% non-proceduralists, p = 0.66). The use of ART was higher among proceduralists (27.2% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.01). Proceduralists were more likely to have biological children during residency (38.6% vs. 27.3%, p < 0.001) and to be childless despite desiring biological children (38.2% vs. 35.2%, p < 0.001). For childcare, proceduralists were more likely to rely on nannies (50.2% vs. 41.6%, p < 0.002), while non-proceduralists were more likely to use daycare (60.8% vs. 49.4%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: This study demonstrates key differences in family-building patterns and the use of ART between procedural and non-procedural physicians. Such discrepancies suggest a need to better support physicians, especially those in procedural specialties, who want to have children by implementing more family-friendly policies.

程序主义医生与非程序主义医生的家庭建设模式。
目的:与非程序主义者相比,程序主义者在不孕症风险、家庭建设模式和育儿习惯方面的差异知之甚少。这项横断面研究考察了程序主义者和非程序主义者在家庭建设模式和儿童保育习惯方面的差异。方法:于2021年4月至5月,通过社交媒体和组织列表服务招募医学生和医生作为方便样本,完成一份问卷,作为医生和儿童研究:期望和经验(SPACE)的一部分。受访者报告了他们的人口统计数据和家庭建设路径(如果适用)。所有表明其专业的医生都包括在内。医学生被排除在外。研究的主要结局是不孕率和辅助生殖技术(ART)的使用率。次要结果包括家庭建设模式和儿童保育习惯。根据先前发表的文献对程序性与非程序性专业进行分类。结果:包括实习医师在内,受访医师2519人,占总受访医师的80.8%。大多数被认为是女性(n = 2246, 89.2%)和异性恋(n = 2204, 87.5%)。程序主义者1103人(43.9%),非程序主义者1416人(56.1%)。不同专科类型的不孕症患病率相似(26.8%的手术医师对26.5%的非手术医师,p = 0.66)。程序医生使用抗逆转录病毒治疗的比例更高(27.2% vs. 22.6%)。结论:本研究显示了程序医生和非程序医生在家庭建设模式和抗逆转录病毒治疗使用方面的关键差异。这种差异表明,有必要通过实施更有利于家庭的政策,更好地支持那些想要生育孩子的医生,尤其是那些程序性专业的医生。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
286
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics publishes cellular, molecular, genetic, and epigenetic discoveries advancing our understanding of the biology and underlying mechanisms from gametogenesis to offspring health. Special emphasis is placed on the practice and evolution of assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) with reference to the diagnosis and management of diseases affecting fertility. Our goal is to educate our readership in the translation of basic and clinical discoveries made from human or relevant animal models to the safe and efficacious practice of human ARTs. The scientific rigor and ethical standards embraced by the JARG editorial team ensures a broad international base of expertise guiding the marriage of contemporary clinical research paradigms with basic science discovery. JARG publishes original papers, minireviews, case reports, and opinion pieces often combined into special topic issues that will educate clinicians and scientists with interests in the mechanisms of human development that bear on the treatment of infertility and emerging innovations in human ARTs. The guiding principles of male and female reproductive health impacting pre- and post-conceptional viability and developmental potential are emphasized within the purview of human reproductive health in current and future generations of our species. The journal is published in cooperation with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, an organization of more than 8,000 physicians, researchers, nurses, technicians and other professionals dedicated to advancing knowledge and expertise in reproductive biology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信