MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409534702 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf067

Racial and ethnic disparities in fecundability: a North American preconception cohort study

2025· article· en· W4409534702 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Lauren A. Wise, Molly N. Hoffman, Sharonda M. Lovett, Ruth J. Geller, Nina L. Schrager, Ugochinyere Vivian Ukah, Amelia K. Wesselink, Jasmine A. Abrams, Renée Boynton‐Jarrett, Wendy Kuohung, Andrea S. Kuriyama, Matthew O. Hunt, David R. Williams, Collette N. Ncube

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Technologies
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesPrecursory Research for Embryonic Science and TechnologyNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Mots-clésDemographyFertilityEthnic groupMedicineNational Survey of Family GrowthPregnancyInfertilityCohortCohort studyProspective cohort studyGynecologyPopulationEnvironmental healthFamily planningPolitical scienceInternal medicineBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: To what extent are there racial and ethnic disparities in fecundability in North America? SUMMARY ANSWER: In a North American preconception cohort study, we observed large differences in fecundability across racial and ethnic groups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several studies in the United States (USA) have shown that Black women tend to wait longer for fertility treatment and are less likely to seek medical care for infertility than White women. Among those who seek infertility treatment, there are large racial disparities in access to treatment and treatment success rates. However, research has been limited and conflicting on the extent to which fertility measures such as fecundability (per-cycle probability of conception) vary by race and ethnicity. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We examined the associations of race and ethnicity with fecundability in Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), a prospective preconception cohort study of US and Canadian residents aged 21-45 years who were actively trying to conceive without the use of fertility treatment at enrollment (2013-2024). We restricted the analysis to 18 573 participants with fewer than 12 cycles of pregnancy attempt time at enrollment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants self-reported data on race and ethnicity on a baseline questionnaire and completed bimonthly follow-up questionnaires for up to 12 months to update data on pregnancy status. We estimated fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using proportional probabilities regression models. We stratified by pregnancy attempt time at enrollment, reproductive history, country of residence, age, and educational attainment. In sensitivity analyses, we applied inverse probability of continuation weights to account for differential loss-to-follow-up. We also calculated the cumulative incidence of infertility during 12 cycles of attempt time by race and ethnicity using life-table methods to account for censoring. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Compared with non-Hispanic White participants, fecundability was appreciably lower among participants who identified as non-Hispanic Black (FR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.52-0.70), non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaskan Native/Indigenous (FR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.44-1.11), non-Hispanic multiracial (FR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.99), or Hispanic other/unknown race (FR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.90). Results were similar when we performed various sensitivity analyses including: application of inverse probability of continuation weights to account for differential loss-to-follow-up; stratification by age and educational attainment; and restriction of analyses to (i) participants with <3 cycles of pregnancy attempt time at enrollment, (ii) nulligravid participants without an infertility history, and (iii) US residents. The 12-cycle cumulative incidence of infertility (i.e. clinical definition) among participants with <2 cycles of attempt time at entry also differed meaningfully by race and ethnicity (33.2% among non-Hispanic Black participants and 29.7% among Hispanic other/unknown race participants vs 16.4% among non-Hispanic White participants). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to limited numbers, we grouped participants into broad racial and ethnic groups within which there is considerable heterogeneity. Such groupings will obscure any differences in fecundability that exist between subgroups. Differential loss-to-follow-up was an important source of selection bias, though findings did not vary appreciably when we applied inverse probability of continuation weights. PRESTO is an internet-based convenience sample of pregnancy planners of higher-than-average socioeconomic status and is, therefore, not representative of all individuals who conceive, which may limit generalizability. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: These descriptive data indicate the strong need for additional studies to carefully measure and better understand the mechanisms underlying disparities in fecundability, including the effects of structural racism and discrimination, as well as programs and policies to advance reproductive health equity. As more research is conducted on the drivers of these disparities, greater efforts should be made to increase fertility awareness, enhance preconception health, expand access to fertility treatments, and improve patient care among underserved populations to reduce the burden of subfertility among those affected. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD086742; T32-HD052458) and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (K01-MD013911). In the past three years, L.A.W. served as a consultant for AbbVie, Inc. and the Gates Foundation. She was also a member of the steering committee for AbbVie on Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and Fibroids, where payments were made to Dr Wise. Her study, PRESTO, received in-kind donations from Kindara.com (fertility apps) and Swiss Precision Diagnostics (home pregnancy tests). C.N. received payments to her institution from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities K01-MD013911. The other authors have no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,861
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,276

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,378
Écart entre enseignants0,342 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetReproductive Health and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207