Underutilization of primary medical care among men presenting for fertility evaluation.
Male factor infertility
men’s health
primary care physicians
primary health care
Journal
F&S reports
ISSN: 2666-3341
Titre abrégé: F S Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101766618
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
26
02
2020
accepted:
01
04
2020
entrez:
5
7
2021
pubmed:
14
4
2020
medline:
14
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determine the proportion of men presenting for fertility evaluation who reported having an established primary care physician (PCP). Retrospective, observational study. Academic health center. All men presenting for initial male factor infertility consultation with a single reproductive urologist between 2002 and 2018. Men were asked to provide the name of their PCP at the time of initial visit. Descriptive statistics characterized the proportion of men with a PCP at the time of evaluation and associations between PCP status and clinical characteristics. Among 4,127 men presenting for initial fertility consultation, 844 (20.5%) reported having an established PCP, 480 (11.6%) reported no PCP, and 2,803 (67.9%) did not have data available. Among 1,302 men who had a prior primary care visit within our healthcare system, 414 (31.8%) had been seen within 1 year before their fertility evaluation. Men with an established PCP were slightly older than those without a PCP, with higher body mass index, and lower systolic blood pressure. Hormonal profiles were similar across groups, but men with an established PCP had a significantly higher total motile sperm count than those without a PCP, median 53 (interquartile range, 11-109) versus 35 (interquartile range, 8-98). More than one third of men presenting for fertility evaluation did not have an established PCP. Reproductive urologists are uniquely positioned to facilitate the critical relationship between young men and PCPs, which should be a key component of the male fertility treatment paradigm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34223206
doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2020.04.001
pii: S2666-3341(20)30005-2
pmc: PMC8244266
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
9-14Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 2012 Jul 7;380(9836):37-43
pubmed: 22579043
Fertil Steril. 2018 Nov;110(6):1006-1011.e2
pubmed: 30396536
J Urol. 2015 May;193(5):1596-601
pubmed: 25463997
J Community Health. 2015 Aug;40(4):750-5
pubmed: 25666868
BMC Public Health. 2018 Aug 30;18(1):1078
pubmed: 30165836
Fertil Steril. 2016 Mar;105(3):629-636
pubmed: 26674559
Sociol Health Illn. 2012 Nov;34(8):1246-61
pubmed: 22471843
J Reprod Med. 2017 Jan-Feb;62(1-2):3-8
pubmed: 29999273
Hum Reprod. 2014 Feb;29(2):193-200
pubmed: 24306102
J Urol. 2001 Jul;166(1):178-80
pubmed: 11435851
Fertil Steril. 1994 Nov;62(5):1028-34
pubmed: 7926114
Fertil Steril. 2015 Jan;103(1):66-71
pubmed: 25497466
BMC Public Health. 2016 Oct 31;16(Suppl 3):1028
pubmed: 28185596
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2008 May;47(4):347-54
pubmed: 18180341
Circulation. 2018 Oct 23;138(17):e484-e594
pubmed: 30354654
Psychol Health. 2012;27(8):898-915
pubmed: 22149462
BMC Fam Pract. 2014 Jun 26;15:126
pubmed: 24965672
Fertil Steril. 2018 Oct;110(5):810-814
pubmed: 30316415
Sociol Health Illn. 2008 Jul;30(5):711-25
pubmed: 18564976
Hum Reprod. 2016 Oct;31(10):2369-76
pubmed: 27591240
Med Clin North Am. 2018 Mar;102(2):399-415
pubmed: 29406067
Hum Reprod. 2014 Jul;29(7):1567-74
pubmed: 24838701
Am Fam Physician. 2016 May 1;93(9):738-40
pubmed: 27175949
Eur Urol Focus. 2020 Jan 15;6(1):178-183
pubmed: 30082228