共 35 条
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