WILLINGNESS OF CHILDLESS COUPLES TO USE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN RUSSIA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significance. Currently, the use of assisted reproductive technologies by women with reproductive health problems is a reserve for increasing fertility. The question remains: how feasible is the practical use of this reserve? Purpose. To assess willingness of men and women of reproductive age, married without children, to use assisted reproductive technologies for childbirth. Material and methods. The study used data obtained during two sample observations of the population reproductive plans conducted by Rosstat in 2017 and 2022. The analyzed samples of the respondents included men and women aged 18-50, married without children. The sample sizes equalled to 1,834 women and 9,932 men in 2017, 594 and 677 in 2022, respectively. The response rate was compared applying contingency tables with the use of Pearson’s Chi-squared criterion at p<0.05, and the odds ratio was determined. Statistical data processing was carried out using the MS Office Excel-2019 and Statistica-6.0 software packages. Results. From 2017 to 2022, the share of the respondents willing to have children in the near or distant future increased among men (from 70.2% to 74.6%) and remained unchanged among women (82.7% and 82.8%, respectively). Consistently, about a quarter of the respondents (27.4% and 26.9% of men, 23.6% and 24.5% of women) were going to have children in six years or more. The share of the respondents whose health fail them to have children increased from 8.0% to 15.0% among men and from 12.6% to 24.9% among women. The share of those who mentioned their spouse’s inability to have children increased (from 15.5% to 18.2% among men and from 3.0% to 11.7% among women). About 2% of the respondents in 2017 and more than 53% in 2022 answered the question about their willingness to use assisted reproductive technologies. Positive responses were given by 23.4% of men and 53.5% of women in 2017, 24.2% and 35.8% in 2023, respectively. The share of the respondents who underwent infertility treatment with the use of assisted reproductive technologies increased from 0.23% to 14.0% among men, and from 0.49% to 7.1% among women. Conclusion. The analysis shows that even among people of reproductive age, married without children, the willingness to use assisted reproductive technologies for the birth of a child is low. The reproductive vulnerability of the population of the Russian Federation is increasing, expressed in deteriorating health and continuing gap between the desired and actual number of children, which, along with the increasing age at first birth, means an inevitable increase in the demand for assisted reproductive technologies. A multiple increase in the frequency of use of assisted reproductive technologies with a moderate declared readiness for them points out the transformation of assisted reproductive technologies into the main tool for realizing reproductive plans for a significant proportion of couples faced with infertility. The key conditions for meeting the growing demand will be to reduce the financial burden on infertile couples, their counseling support and public education in order to combat stigma associated with the use of assisted reproductive technologies and debunk myths about them. Keywords: demand for assisted reproductive technologies; age at the first birth; reproductive plans; role of partners in reproductive decisions
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it