Amelia G Kelly, Morgan S Levy, Padmaja Sundaram, Alyssa D Brown, Alberto J Caban-Martinez, Roohi Jeelani, Vineet M Arora, Arghavan Salles
{"title":"程序主义医生与非程序主义医生的家庭建设模式。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Family-building patterns of proceduralist and non-proceduralist physicians.
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
