Infertility treatment and fertility-specific distress: A longitudinal analysis of a population-based sample of U.S. women
AbstractBecause research on infertile women usually uses clinic-based samples of treatment seekers, it is difficult to sort out to what extent distress is the result of the condition of infertility itself and to what extent it is a consequence of the experience of infertility treatment. We use the National Survey of Fertility Barriers, a two-wave national probability sample of U.S. women, to disentangle the effects of infertility and infertility treatment on fertility-specific distress. Using a series of ANOVAs, we examine 266 infertile women who experienced infertility both at Wave 1 and at Wave 2, three years later. We compare eight groups of infertile women based on whether or not they have received treatment and on whether or not they have had a live birth. At Wave 1, infertile women who did not receive treatment and who had no live birth reported lower distress levels than women who received treatment at Wave 1 only, regardless of whether their infertility episode was followed by a live birth. At Wave 2, women who received no treatment have significantly lower fertility-specific distress than women who were treated at Wave 1 or at Waves 1 and 2, regardless of whether there was a subsequent live birth. Furthermore, fertility-specific distress did not increase over time among infertile women who did not receive treatment. The increase infertility-specific distress was significantly higher for women who received treatment at Wave 2 that was not followed by a live birth than for women who received no treatment or for women who received treatment at Wave 1 only. These patterns suggest that infertility treatment is associated with levels of distress over and above those associated with the state of being infertile in and of itself.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.
Volume (Year): 73 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.