{"title":"Defining infertility: a qualitative interview study of patients and physicians.","authors":"K M Summers, A Scherer, E E Chasco, G L Ryan","doi":"10.1080/02646838.2023.2221277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate if infertility patients and physicians apply a traditional biomedical model of disease in their conceptualisation of infertility, examine any contradictions and conflicts in conceptualisations, and examine areas of concordance and discordance between physicians and patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 infertility patients and 18 infertility physicians between September 2010 and April 2012. Interviews were analysed qualitatively to determine physician and patient conceptualisations of infertility, reactions to the definition of infertility as a disease, and potential benefits and concerns related to application of a disease label to the condition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most physicians (<i>n</i> = 14/18) and a minority of patients (<i>n</i> = 6/20) were supportive of defining infertility as a disease. Many of the patients who agreed with classifying infertility as a disease expressed that they had not personally defined it as such previously. Physicians (<i>n</i> = 14) and patients (<i>n</i> = 13) described potential benefits of a disease label, including increases in research funding, insurance coverage, and social acceptability. Some patients (<i>n</i> = 10) described potential stigma as a negative consequence. When describing appraisals of infertility, both physicians (<i>n</i> = 7) and patients (<i>n</i> = 8) invoked religious/spiritual concepts. The potential for religious/spiritual appraisal to contribute to stigmatising or de-stigmatising infertility was discussed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings contradict the assumption that infertility physicians and patients are fully supportive of defining infertility as a disease. While potential benefits of the disease label were recognised by both groups, caution against potential for stigmatisation and unsolicited invocation of religion/spirituality suggest a more holistic model may be appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":47721,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"19-33"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2023.2221277","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate if infertility patients and physicians apply a traditional biomedical model of disease in their conceptualisation of infertility, examine any contradictions and conflicts in conceptualisations, and examine areas of concordance and discordance between physicians and patients.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 infertility patients and 18 infertility physicians between September 2010 and April 2012. Interviews were analysed qualitatively to determine physician and patient conceptualisations of infertility, reactions to the definition of infertility as a disease, and potential benefits and concerns related to application of a disease label to the condition.
Results: Most physicians (n = 14/18) and a minority of patients (n = 6/20) were supportive of defining infertility as a disease. Many of the patients who agreed with classifying infertility as a disease expressed that they had not personally defined it as such previously. Physicians (n = 14) and patients (n = 13) described potential benefits of a disease label, including increases in research funding, insurance coverage, and social acceptability. Some patients (n = 10) described potential stigma as a negative consequence. When describing appraisals of infertility, both physicians (n = 7) and patients (n = 8) invoked religious/spiritual concepts. The potential for religious/spiritual appraisal to contribute to stigmatising or de-stigmatising infertility was discussed.
Conclusion: Our findings contradict the assumption that infertility physicians and patients are fully supportive of defining infertility as a disease. While potential benefits of the disease label were recognised by both groups, caution against potential for stigmatisation and unsolicited invocation of religion/spirituality suggest a more holistic model may be appropriate.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology reports and reviews outstanding research on psychological, behavioural, medical and social aspects of human reproduction, pregnancy and infancy. Medical topics focus on obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics and psychiatry. The growing work in relevant aspects of medical communication and medical sociology are also covered. Relevant psychological work includes developmental psychology, clinical psychology, social psychology, behavioural medicine, psychology of women and health psychology. Research into psychological aspects of midwifery, health visiting and nursing is central to the interests of the Journal. The Journal is of special value to those concerned with interdisciplinary issues. As a result, the Journal is of particular interest to those concerned with fundamental processes in behaviour and to issues of health promotion and service organization.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
