Publicly available information about fertility benefits for trainees at medical schools in the US

被引:2
|
作者
Rasouli, Melody A. [1 ]
Barrett, Francesca [2 ]
Levy, Morgan S. [3 ]
Kim, Ashley S. [4 ]
Roytman, Maya [5 ]
Cumbo, Nicole [6 ]
Talib, Hina [7 ]
Kaye, Erica C. [8 ]
机构
[1] UNLV, Kirk Kerkorian Sch Med, Las Vegas, NV 89154 USA
[2] NYU Langone Hlth, New York, NY USA
[3] Univ Miami, Miller Sch Med, Miami, FL USA
[4] Univ Oklahoma, Hlth Sci Ctr, Reprod Endocrinol & Infertil, Oklahoma City, OK USA
[5] Loyola Univ, Chicago, IL USA
[6] Jersey Shore Univ, Med Ctr, Hackensack Meridian Hlth, Neptune, NJ USA
[7] Albert Einstein Coll Med, Bronx, NY USA
[8] St Jude Childrens Res Hosp, Memphis, TN USA
关键词
Assisted reproductive technology; Residents; Graduate medical education; Physician workforce;
D O I
10.1007/s10815-023-02849-1
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
PurposeInfertility affects one in four female physicians, yet current availability of fertility benefits within Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited residency programs in the United States (US) is unknown. Our objective was to examine publicly available fertility benefits information for residents and fellows.MethodsThe top 50 medical schools in the US for research were identified using US News & World Report 2022. In April 2022, we reviewed fertility benefits available to residents and fellows at these medical schools. Websites of their associated graduate medical education (GME) websites were queried for details surrounding fertility benefits. Two investigators collected data from GME and publicly available institutional websites. The primary outcome was fertility coverage and rates are reported as percentages.ResultsWithin the top 50 medical schools, 66% of institutional websites included publicly available medical benefits, 40% included any mention of fertility benefits, and 32% had no explicit information on fertility or medical benefits. Fertility benefit coverage included infertility diagnostic workup (40%), intrauterine insemination (32%), prescription coverage (12%), and in vitro fertilization (IVF, 30%). No information on coverage for third party reproduction or LGBT family building was available on public websites. Most programs with fertility benefits were in the South (40%) or Midwest (30%).ConclusionTo support the reproductive autonomy of physicians in training, it is critical to ensure access to information on fertility care coverage. Given the prevalence of infertility among physicians and the impact of medical training on family planning goals, more programs should offer and publicize coverage for fertility care.
引用
收藏
页码:1313 / 1316
页数:4
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] Publicly available information about fertility benefits for trainees at medical schools in the US
    Melody A. Rasouli
    Francesca Barrett
    Morgan S. Levy
    Ashley S. Kim
    Maya Roytman
    Nicole Cumbo
    Hina Talib
    Erica C. Kaye
    Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 2023, 40 : 1313 - 1316
  • [2] FERTILITY BENEFITS FOR RESIDENTS: PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION AT THE TOP 50 US MEDICAL SCHOOLS
    Rasouli, Melody A.
    Barrett, Francesca
    Levy, Morgan S.
    Kim, Ashley S.
    Roytman, Maya
    Cumbo, Nicole
    Talib, Hina
    Kaye, Erica C.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2022, 118 (04) : E195 - E195
  • [3] Fertility Benefits at Top US Medical Schools
    Hoang, Kim
    Evans, Neal
    Aghajanova, Lusine
    Talib, Hina
    Linos, Eleni
    Gold, Jessica M.
    JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, 2022, 31 (09) : 1369 - 1373
  • [4] Making information about clinical trials publicly available
    Smyth, Rosalind L.
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 338
  • [5] Quality of Publicly Available Information About Urinary Tract Infections
    Schmitz, Viktoria
    Troubh, Zoe
    Durkin, Michael
    Hsueh, Kevin
    Ney, Katheryn
    Carpenter, Brian D.
    Waldron, Shinbee
    Politi, Mary C.
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2024, 7 (11)
  • [6] A vision for integrated publicly available information on regulated medical products
    Roberts, Khyati
    Thakkar, Roopal
    Aljuburi, Lina
    Boyce, Donna
    Curtis, Sean
    Dudinak, Jennifer
    Fitton, Helen
    Garner, Carlos
    Garvin, Michael
    Longman, Susan
    Reilly, Edward
    Maitland, Jordan
    Miller, Alexis Reisin
    Paste, Muriel
    Rohrer, Michelle
    Taisey, Mark
    Van Baelen, Karin
    Wegner, Max
    CTS-CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE, 2022, 15 (06): : 1321 - 1327
  • [7] Geodatabase of Publicly Available Information about Czech Municipalities' Local Administration
    Paszto, Vit
    Panek, Jiri
    Burian, Jaroslav
    DATA, 2021, 6 (08)
  • [8] The medical humanities at United States medical schools: a mixed method analysis of publicly assessable information on 31 schools
    Anil, Joshua
    Cunningham, Phoebe
    Dine, C. Jessica
    Swain, Amanda
    Delisser, Horace M.
    BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [9] The medical humanities at United States medical schools: a mixed method analysis of publicly assessable information on 31 schools
    Joshua Anil
    Phoebe Cunningham
    C. Jessica Dine
    Amanda Swain
    Horace M. DeLisser
    BMC Medical Education, 23
  • [10] Quality analysis of publicly available information about hypoplastic left heart syndrome
    Brennan, Zachary
    Sharaf, Omar M.
    Treffalls, John A. A.
    Roa-Vidal, Natalia
    Weinstein, Douglas J. J.
    Bassuk, Jonah S. S.
    Stukov, Yuriy
    Peek, Giles J. J.
    Bleiweis, Mark S. S.
    Jacobs, Jeffrey P. P.
    CARDIOLOGY IN THE YOUNG, 2023, 33 (07) : 1079 - 1085