A qualitative study of Ottawa university students’ awareness, knowledge and perceptions of infertility, infertility risk factors and assisted reproductive technologies (ART)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Awareness of infertility risk factors is an essential first step to safeguard future fertility. Whereas several studies have examined university students' awareness of female fertility and related risk factors, the topic of male infertility has not been well examined. The objective of this study was to assess young men and women's awareness, knowledge and perceptions of infertility, male and female infertility risk factors and assisted reproductive technologies (ART). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2008 with a multi-ethnic sample of sixteen male and twenty-three female Ottawa university students, followed by qualitative data analysis to identify major themes. Interview topics included awareness of male and female infertility risk factors, infertility diagnosis/treatments and personal options in the event of future infertility. RESULTS: Participants were generally familiar with infertility as a biomedical health problem, could identify sex-specific risk factors but overestimated fertility of women in their thirties and ART success rates. Reproductive health knowledge gaps and confusion of the physiological life-stage of menopause with infertility were apparent. Most participants would pursue in vitro fertilization or international adoption in the event of personal infertility. Some participants wished to use a 'natural' approach and were concerned with potential side effects of ART-related medications. CONCLUSIONS: The general awareness of infertility in young adults is promising and supports the potential uptake for health promotion of fertility preservation. This study underscores the continued need for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education and promotion for adolescents and young adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".