Kelly Amelia G, Levy Morgan S, Sundaram Padmaja, Brown Alyssa D, Martinez Alberto J Caban, Jeelani Roohi, Arora Vineet M, Salles Arghavan
Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA.
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2025 Sep 13. doi: 10.1007/s10815-025-03611-5.
Little is known about differences in the risk of infertility, family-building patterns, and childcare habits of proceduralists compared to non-proceduralists. This cross-sectional study examines variations in family-building patterns and childcare habits between proceduralists and non-proceduralists.
From April to May 2021, a convenience sample of medical students and physicians was recruited through social media and organizational listservs to complete a questionnaire as part of the Study of Physicians and Children: Expectations and Experiences (SPACE). Respondents reported their demographics and family-building path, if applicable. All physicians who indicated their specialty were included. Medical students were excluded. The primary outcomes of interest were the rates of infertility and utilization of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Secondary outcomes included family-building patterns and childcare habits. Procedural vs. non-procedural specialties were categorized based on previously published literature.
Including trainee physicians, there were 2519 physician respondents (80.8% of all respondents). The majority identified as women (n = 2246, 89.2%) and as heterosexual (n = 2204, 87.5%). There were 1103 (43.9%) proceduralists and 1416 (56.1%) non-proceduralists. The prevalence of infertility was similar across specialty type (26.8% proceduralists vs. 26.5% non-proceduralists, p = 0.66). The use of ART was higher among proceduralists (27.2% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.01). Proceduralists were more likely to have biological children during residency (38.6% vs. 27.3%, p < 0.001) and to be childless despite desiring biological children (38.2% vs. 35.2%, p < 0.001). For childcare, proceduralists were more likely to rely on nannies (50.2% vs. 41.6%, p < 0.002), while non-proceduralists were more likely to use daycare (60.8% vs. 49.4%, p < 0.001).
This study demonstrates key differences in family-building patterns and the use of ART between procedural and non-procedural physicians. Such discrepancies suggest a need to better support physicians, especially those in procedural specialties, who want to have children by implementing more family-friendly policies.
与非手术科室医生相比，关于手术科室医生在不孕风险、生育模式和育儿习惯方面的差异，人们了解甚少。这项横断面研究调查了手术科室医生和非手术科室医生在生育模式和育儿习惯上的差异。
2021年4月至5月，通过社交媒体和组织内部通讯招募了一个医学生和医生的便利样本，以完成一份问卷，作为医生与儿童：期望与经历研究（SPACE）的一部分。受访者报告了他们的人口统计学信息和生育途径（如适用）。所有表明其专业的医生都被纳入。医学生被排除在外。感兴趣的主要结果是不孕率和辅助生殖技术（ART）的使用率。次要结果包括生育模式和育儿习惯。根据先前发表的文献对手术科室与非手术科室专业进行分类。
包括实习医生在内，有2519名医生受访者（占所有受访者的80.8%）。大多数受访者为女性（n = 2246，89.2%）且为异性恋（n = 2204，87.5%）。有1103名（43.9%）手术科室医生和1416名（56.1%）非手术科室医生。不同专业类型的不孕患病率相似（手术科室医生为26.8%，非手术科室医生为26.5%，p = 0.66）。手术科室医生中ART的使用率更高（27.2%对22.6%，p < 0.01）。手术科室医生在住院医师培训期间生育亲生孩子的可能性更大（38.6%对27.3%，p < 0.001），并且尽管想要亲生孩子但没有孩子的可能性也更大（38.2%对35.2%，p < 0.001）。在育儿方面，手术科室医生更有可能依赖保姆（50.2%对41.6%，p < 0.002），而非手术科室医生更有可能使用日托服务（60.8%对49.4%，p < 0.001）。
本研究表明手术科室医生和非手术科室医生在生育模式和ART使用方面存在关键差异。这些差异表明有必要更好地支持那些想要孩子并希望通过实施更有利于家庭的政策来实现这一愿望的医生，尤其是手术科室专业的医生。
