You did not turn up… I did not realise I was invited…: understanding male attitudes towards engagement in fertility and reproductive health discussions.

childbearing family building fatherhood fertility awareness men’s health preconception health psychosocial issues qualitative research relationships and sex education reproductive health

Journal

Human reproduction open
ISSN: 2399-3529
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722764

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 14 01 2019
revised: 15 04 2019
entrez: 21 6 2019
pubmed: 21 6 2019
medline: 21 6 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

What are the underlying reasons for low male engagement in fertility and reproductive health discussions and decision-making? The perception of women's primacy in fertility and reproductive health limits the extent to which men believe their engagement is important. Active participation of men in the process of informed decision-making regarding childbearing is beneficial for mother, father, and child. However, in research studies in these areas, little attention has been given to men. Additionally, there is poor engagement by men, as well as a dearth of information from, and on, the male perspective. In total, 35 semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted in an office setting with three groups: 13 lay women, 13 lay men, and 9 (2 male and 7 female) healthcare professionals. Interviews took place between October 2016 and February 2017. Participants were men and women of reproductive age from the general population and healthcare professionals who had completed an online fertility awareness survey and agreed to follow-up interviews. Interviews were audio recorded and lasted ~1 hour, during which participants were asked to provide their views on childbearing decision-making, and male and female representation in fertility and reproductive health. Data was transcribed verbatim and analysed qualitatively via framework analysis. Both men and women saw fertility as a woman's issue, but from different viewpoints. Women saw it from the perspective of societal stereotypes regarding male and female roles, whereas men tended to defer to the woman's primacy in reproductive decisions. Men generally wanted to be involved in childbearing discussions and improve their fertility knowledge. However, they felt they did not have a voice on the topic because discussions have traditionally focused on women. The notion that men are not expected to be interested and engaged thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Healthcare professionals agreed that fertility was perceived as the woman's domain, but also highlighted that poor male involvement is typically observed across healthcare needs and is not necessarily unique to fertility and reproductive health. Due to the online recruitment method, there is a potential bias towards respondents of higher, rather than lower, socioeconomic status within the general population. Fertility tends to be seen as a private topic. Additional concerted effort by reproductive health researchers, charity organisations, educators, healthcare service providers, and policy makers is needed to proactively encourage male involvement in reproductive decision-making. This can be achieved through normalising and breaking taboos around the topic, male-friendly research study design approaches, male-inclusive reproductive healthcare services, implementation of health policies that recognise the needs of men, encouraging male research staff representation, and age-appropriate educational programmes on sexual and reproductive health, which include boys and adolescents from a young age. Research funding was received from SPD Development Co. Ltd. B.G. and S.J. are employed by SPD Development Co. Ltd. None of the other authors have any conflict of interest related to the discussed topic. Not applicable.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31218265
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoz014
pii: hoz014
pmc: PMC6573469
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

hoz014

Références

J Adolesc Health. 2012 Jul;51(1):1-2
pubmed: 22727069
Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Sep;27(3):225-35
pubmed: 23871364
Nestle Nutr Inst Workshop Ser. 2013;74:63-73
pubmed: 23887104
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Glob Health Promot. 2015 Jun;22(2):65-70
pubmed: 25024274
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Mar;101(3):827-36
pubmed: 26908110
Reprod Health. 2016 Jul 16;13(1):81
pubmed: 27423461
Matern Child Health J. 2017 Feb;21(2):267-274
pubmed: 27473093
Hum Reprod Update. 2017 Jul 1;23(4):458-480
pubmed: 28333354
Matern Child Health J. 2017 Nov;21(11):2025-2039
pubmed: 28983715
Hum Reprod. 2018 Apr 1;33(4):541-545
pubmed: 29425298
Lancet. 2018 May 5;391(10132):1830-1841
pubmed: 29673873
Lancet. 2018 May 5;391(10132):1842-1852
pubmed: 29673874
Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2017 Apr 08;4:18-20
pubmed: 29774262
Am J Mens Health. 2018 Sep;12(5):1575-1581
pubmed: 29774805
Ups J Med Sci. 2018 Dec;123(4):255-263
pubmed: 30541376
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 20;14(3):e0213897
pubmed: 30893380

Auteurs

B Grace (B)

Research Department of Reproductive Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
SPD Development Company Limited, Bedford, UK.

J Shawe (J)

The Institute of Health and Community, Faculty of Health & Human Sciences, the University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.

S Johnson (S)

SPD Development Company Limited, Bedford, UK.

J Stephenson (J)

Research Department of Reproductive Health, UCL Institute for Women's Health, Faculty of Population Health Sciences, University College London, London, UK.

Classifications MeSH