Socioeconomic status and fecundability in a Danish preconception cohort.
cohort
education
fecundability
income
social determinants of health
socioeconomic status
time to pregnancy
Journal
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2023
01 06 2023
Historique:
received:
28
11
2022
revised:
22
03
2023
pmc-release:
24
04
2024
medline:
2
6
2023
pubmed:
25
4
2023
entrez:
24
04
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To what extent is socioeconomic status (SES), as measured by educational attainment and household income, associated with fecundability in a cohort of Danish couples trying to conceive? In this preconception cohort, lower educational attainment and lower household income were associated with lower fecundability after adjusting for potential confounders. Approximately 15% of couples are affected by infertility. Socioeconomic disparities in health are well established. However, little is known about socioeconomic disparity and its relation to fertility. This is a cohort study of Danish females aged 18-49 years who were trying to conceive between 2007 and 2021. Information was collected via baseline and bi-monthly follow-up questionnaires for 12 months or until reported pregnancy. Overall, 10 475 participants contributed 38 629 menstrual cycles and 6554 pregnancies during a maximum of 12 cycles of follow-up. We used proportional probabilities regression models to estimate fecundability ratios (FRs) and 95% CIs. Compared with upper tertiary education (highest level), fecundability was substantially lower for primary and secondary school (FR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62-0.85), upper secondary school (FR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-1.00), vocational education (FR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.75-0.89), and lower tertiary education (FR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80-0.95), but not for middle tertiary education (FR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93-1.03). Compared with a monthly household income of >65 000 DKK, fecundability was lower for household income <25 000 DKK (FR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72-0.85), 25 000-39 000 DKK (FR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.94), and 40 000-65 000 DKK (FR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-0.99). The results did not change appreciably after adjustment for potential confounders. We used educational attainment and household income as indicators of SES. However, SES is a complex concept, and these indicators may not reflect all aspects of SES. The study recruited couples planning to conceive, including the full spectrum of fertility from less fertile to highly fertile individuals. Our results may generalize to most couples who are trying to conceive. Our results are consistent with the literature indicating well-documented inequities in health across socioeconomic groups. The associations for income were surprisingly strong considering the Danish welfare state. These results indicate that the redistributive welfare system in Denmark does not suffice to eradicate inequities in reproductive health. The study was supported by the Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (RO1-HD086742, R21-HD050264, and R01-HD060680). The authors declare no conflict of interest. N/A.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37094974
pii: 7140397
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead077
pmc: PMC10233268
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1183-1193Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R21 HD050264
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R01 HD060680
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Hum Reprod. 2019 Mar 1;34(3):558-567
pubmed: 30576495
Fertil Steril. 2008 Nov;90(5):1640-8
pubmed: 18321499
J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96
pubmed: 6668417
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Feb;1186:174-89
pubmed: 20201873
BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Aug 05;15:190
pubmed: 26242577
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;27(5):491-502
pubmed: 23930785
BMJ. 2009 Jun 29;338:b2393
pubmed: 19564179
Fertil Steril. 2013 Jun;99(7):1958-64
pubmed: 23517858
Occup Environ Med. 2011 Mar;68(3):197-204
pubmed: 21172792
Lancet Public Health. 2023 Feb;8(2):e99-e108
pubmed: 36709062
Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 May;25(5):297-304
pubmed: 20148289
Hum Reprod. 2012 Feb;27(2):583-93
pubmed: 22184203
Fertil Steril. 2017 Sep;108(3):393-406
pubmed: 28760517
Afr J Reprod Health. 2018 Sep;22(3):33-42
pubmed: 30381930
Circulation. 1993 Oct;88(4 Pt 1):1973-98
pubmed: 8403348
Radiol Oncol. 2020 Feb 19;54(1):1-13
pubmed: 32074075
Clin Biochem. 2018 Dec;62:2-10
pubmed: 29555319
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2022 Jan;36(1):57-67
pubmed: 34890081
Epidemiology. 2004 Sep;15(5):615-25
pubmed: 15308962
Epidemiology. 1992 May;3(3):210-5
pubmed: 1591319
Fertil Steril. 2013 Apr;99(5):1324-1331.e1
pubmed: 23290741
Am J Epidemiol. 1989 May;129(5):1072-8
pubmed: 2705427
Stat Methods Med Res. 2007 Jun;16(3):219-42
pubmed: 17621469
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Jun;7(6):e748-e760
pubmed: 31028013
Fertil Steril. 2012 May;97(5):1136-42.e1-4
pubmed: 22425198
Fertil Steril. 2022 Sep;118(3):560-567
pubmed: 35710598
Hum Reprod. 2006 May;21(5):1279-84
pubmed: 16410331
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Dec;14(12):1206-18
pubmed: 26581971
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Mar 01;19(3):e58
pubmed: 28249833
Am J Clin Nutr. 2022 Nov;116(5):1441-1451
pubmed: 36192441
Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;38(4):938-43
pubmed: 18782897
Ann Epidemiol. 2020 Oct;50:41-47.e1
pubmed: 32681982
Hum Reprod. 2020 Apr 28;35(4):816-825
pubmed: 32155263
Hum Reprod Update. 2005 May-Jun;11(3):261-76
pubmed: 15831503
Epidemiology. 2019 Jan;30(1):120-129
pubmed: 30198936
Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Feb 15;165(4):444-52
pubmed: 17150983
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jun 1;5(6):e2218738
pubmed: 35771576