Fecundability in Association With Everyday and Lifetime Discrimination
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: There are well-documented racial and socioeconomic disparities in fertility outcomes, yet little is known about the association between discrimination and fecundability. Objective: To examine the association of self-reported experiences of everyday and lifetime discrimination with fecundability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included data from the Pregnancy Study Online, a web-based prospective preconception cohort study that examines whether lifestyle factors are associated with fertility and pregnancy. Female participants aged 21 to 45 years in the US and Canada who were attempting pregnancy were recruited online from June 2013 to January 2023 and followed up for up to 12 months. Exposures: Everyday discrimination (eg, disrespect, harassment) and lifetime discrimination (eg, on the job, by police) as measured using adapted versions of Williams' Everyday Discrimination Scale and Major Experiences of Discrimination scale. Summary score variables were created for frequency of everyday discrimination (ranging from 0 to ≥7, with scores of ≥7 indicating very high everyday discrimination) and for the number of lifetime discrimination types (ranging from 0 to ≥3, with ≥3 indicating greater lifetime discrimination). Attributions of and responses to discrimination were also examined. Main Outcomes and Measures: Fecundability, the per-cycle probability of conception, was measured using bimonthly follow-up questionnaires. Proportional probabilities regression models were used to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CIs across categories of everyday and lifetime discrimination. Adjustments were made for potential confounders and stratified analyses by race and ethnicity. Results: Among 6578 female participants (mean [SD] age, 30.5 [3.9] years), 1164 (17.7%) reported everyday discrimination scores of 7 or more, and 3144 (47.8%) reported 1 or more experiences of lifetime discrimination. In terms of race and ethnicity, 375 participants (5.7%) identified as Hispanic, 110 (1.7%) as non-Hispanic Black, 5701 (86.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 392 (6.0%) as non-Hispanic other race (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and multiracial or other race). Everyday discrimination was associated with reduced fecundability (score ≥7 vs 0: FR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.75-0.90]; especially harassment [few times or more per month] vs none: FR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64-0.87]). Any experience (vs none) of lifetime discrimination was associated with decreased fecundability (FR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]), especially discrimination when receiving medical care (FR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.95]) and when on the job (FR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]) vs no such discrimination. Reduced fecundability was mostly observed among White participants who experienced everyday discrimination (everyday discrimination score ≥7 vs 0: FR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71-0.87]) and among racial and ethnic minority individuals who experienced any lifetime discrimination (FR, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.94]) compared with no such discrimination. Participants who attributed their discrimination to race or ethnicity (lifetime discrimination score of 2 vs 0: FR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.52-0.83]) or who kept quiet and accepted their experiences (everyday discrimination score ≥7 vs 0: FR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63-0.92]) were generally more likely to have reduced fecundability. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that everyday and lifetime experiences of discrimination were associated with reduced fecundability. Associations varied by frequency and type of discrimination, highlighting the need for more research on the possible reproductive health effects of unfair treatment.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».