120
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      National, Regional, and Global Trends in Infertility Prevalence Since 1990: A Systematic Analysis of 277 Health Surveys

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Gretchen Stevens and colleagues use information from demographic reproductive health surveys to estimate the global, regional, and country levels, patterns, and trends in infertility between 1990 and 2010.

          Abstract

          Background

          Global, regional, and national estimates of prevalence of and tends in infertility are needed to target prevention and treatment efforts. By applying a consistent algorithm to demographic and reproductive surveys available from developed and developing countries, we estimate infertility prevalence and trends, 1990 to 2010, by country and region.

          Methods and Findings

          We accessed and analyzed household survey data from 277 demographic and reproductive health surveys using a consistent algorithm to calculate infertility. We used a demographic infertility measure with live birth as the outcome and a 5-y exposure period based on union status, contraceptive use, and desire for a child. We corrected for biases arising from the use of incomplete information on past union status and contraceptive use. We used a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate prevalence of and trends in infertility in 190 countries and territories. In 2010, among women 20–44 y of age who were exposed to the risk of pregnancy, 1.9% (95% uncertainty interval 1.7%, 2.2%) were unable to attain a live birth (primary infertility). Out of women who had had at least one live birth and were exposed to the risk of pregnancy, 10.5% (9.5%, 11.7%) were unable to have another child (secondary infertility). Infertility prevalence was highest in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa/Middle East, and Central/Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Levels of infertility in 2010 were similar to those in 1990 in most world regions, apart from declines in primary and secondary infertility in Sub-Saharan Africa and primary infertility in South Asia (posterior probability [pp] ≥0.99). Although there were no statistically significant changes in the prevalence of infertility in most regions amongst women who were exposed to the risk of pregnancy, reduced child-seeking behavior resulted in a reduction of primary infertility among all women from 1.6% to 1.5% (pp = 0.90) and a reduction of secondary infertility among all women from 3.9% to 3.0% (pp>0.99) from 1990 to 2010. Due to population growth, however, the absolute number of couples affected by infertility increased from 42.0 million (39.6 million, 44.8 million) in 1990 to 48.5 million (45.0 million, 52.6 million) in 2010. Limitations of the study include gaps in survey data for some countries and the use of proxies to determine exposure to pregnancy.

          Conclusions

          We analyzed demographic and reproductive household survey data to reveal global patterns and trends in infertility. Independent from population growth and worldwide declines in the preferred number of children, we found little evidence of changes in infertility over two decades, apart from in the regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Further research is needed to identify the etiological causes of these patterns and trends.

          Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

          Editors' Summary

          Background

          Reproductive health is a priority global health area: the target for Millennium Development Goal 5B is to provide universal access to reproductive health by 2015. The indicators for monitoring progress in reaching this target are contraceptive prevalence rate, adolescent birth rate, antenatal care coverage, and the unmet need for family planning. Infertility, the inability to conceive after a prolonged period (the length of time varies in different definitions) of unprotected intercourse, is a critical but much neglected aspect of reproductive health. The inability to have children affects couples worldwide and causes emotional and psychological distress in both men and women. Many factors—including physiological, genetic, environmental, and social— contribute to infertility. According to the World Health Organization, infertility resulting from sexually transmitted diseases or reproductive tract infections is particularly problematic in Africa and Latin America.

          Why Was This Study Done?

          The researchers used a uniform measure of infertility that incorporated live birth as the outcome of interest (as this information is more commonly reported than pregnancies), a five-year “exposure period,” that is, a five-year period of being in an intimate relationship, not using contraceptives, and wanting a child (as the researchers calculated that this period was necessary to accommodate the time it takes to become pregnant and have a child, and to allow for incomplete information on frequency of unprotected intercourse). The researchers used a statistical model (Bayesian hierarchical model) to generate estimates for levels and trends of infertility in 190 countries over the time period 1990 to 2010 using information collected from national demographic and reproductive health surveys. The most data was available for South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

          What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

          The researchers found that in 2010, 1.9% of women aged 20–44 years who wanted to have children were unable to have their first live birth (primary infertility), and 10.5% of women with a previous live birth were unable to have an additional live birth (secondary infertility). The researchers found that the levels of infertility were similar in 1990 and 2010, with only a slight overall decrease in primary infertility (0.1%, but with a more pronounced drop in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia) and a modest overall increase in secondary infertility (0.4%). Age affected infertility rates: the prevalence of primary infertility was higher among women aged 20–24 years than among older women. The age pattern was reversed and even more pronounced for secondary infertility. And primary infertility rates among women wanting children also varied by region, from 1.5% in Latin America and the Caribbean in 2010, to 2.6% in North Africa and the Middle East. With a few exceptions, global and country patterns of secondary infertility were similar to those of primary infertility.

          What Do These Findings Mean?

          These findings suggest that in 2010, an estimated 48.5 million couples worldwide were unable to have a child after five years. However, these findings also suggest that global levels of primary and secondary infertility hardly changed between 1990 and 2010. It is important to note that an infertility measure based on ability to become pregnant (rather than having a live birth—the outcome used in this study) may show different levels of infertility, and using an exposure period shorter than the five years used in this study would produce higher rates of infertility. However, because of the lack of widespread data collection on time to pregnancy, the methods used and results shown in this study provide useful insights into global, regional, and country patterns and trends in infertility.

          Additional Information

          Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356.

          • The World Health Organization has information on reproductive health

          • Wikipedia defines infertility and gives some useful information (note that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit)

          • Patient friendly information on infertility can be found at PubMed Health and NHS Choices

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008

          The Lancet, 379(9816), 625-632
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years.

            To investigate whether semen quality has changed during the past 50 years. Review of publications on semen quality in men without a history of infertility selected by means of Cumulated Index Medicus and Current List (1930-1965) and MEDLINE Silver Platter database (1966-August 1991). 14,947 men included in a total of 61 papers published between 1938 and 1991. Mean sperm density and mean seminal volume. Linear regression of data weighted by number of men in each study showed a significant decrease in mean sperm count from 113 x 10(6)/ml in 1940 to 66 x 10(6)/ml in 1990 (p < 0.0001) and in seminal volume from 3.40 ml to 2.75 ml (p = 0.027), indicating an even more pronounced decrease in sperm production than expressed by the decline in sperm density. There has been a genuine decline in semen quality over the past 50 years. As male fertility is to some extent correlated with sperm count the results may reflect an overall reduction in male fertility. The biological significance of these changes is emphasised by a concomitant increase in the incidence of genitourinary abnormalities such as testicular cancer and possibly also cryptorchidism and hypospadias, suggesting a growing impact of factors with serious effects on male gonadal function.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Defining infertility--a systematic review of prevalence studies.

              Existing definitions of infertility lack uniformity, rendering comparisons in prevalence between countries or over time problematic. The absence of an agreed definition also compromises clinical management and undermines the impact of research findings. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to determine how infertility has been defined in prevalence studies and to come up with suggestions for a feasible and clinically relevant definition. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant population-based prevalence studies published between 1975 and 2010. A total of 39 articles were included in the current review. The results highlight the heterogeneity of criteria used to define infertility and critical differences between demographic and epidemiological definitions. Demographers tend to define infertility as childlessness in a population of women of reproductive age, while the epidemiological definition is based on 'trying for' or 'time to' a pregnancy, generally in a population of women exposed to the risk of conception. There is considerable variation in terms of the duration of 'trying for pregnancy', the age of women sampled and their marital or cohabitation status. This leads to inconsistencies in determining the numerator and denominator used to calculate the prevalence of infertility. There is a need for an agreed definition for infertility. We suggest a clinically relevant definition based on the duration of trying for pregnancy coupled with female age.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Med
                PLoS Med
                PLoS
                plosmed
                PLoS Medicine
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1549-1277
                1549-1676
                December 2012
                December 2012
                18 December 2012
                : 9
                : 12
                : e1001356
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                [2 ]Machine Learning Department, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America
                [3 ]School of Public Policy and Management, H. John Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America
                [4 ]Department of Health Statistics and Information Systems, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [5 ]Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                University of Bern, Switzerland
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: GAS. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: MNM SRF TB SV GAS. ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: MNM SRF TB SV GAS. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: MNM SRF TB SV GAS. MNM and GAS accessed and analyzed health survey data. SRF developed the Bayesian statistical model with input from MNM and GAS. All authors contributed to the study design, analysis, and writing of the report. GAS oversaw the research.

                Article
                PMEDICINE-D-12-02236
                10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356
                3525527
                23271957
                bae8850c-269b-4a7b-a3aa-4f52d1bba5de
                Copyright @ 2012

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 27 July 2012
                : 7 November 2012
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Funding
                This study was partially funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Subcontract No. 498744 of the Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study (University of Washington). The results in this paper are prepared independently of the final estimates of the Global Burden of Disease study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. TB, SV, and GAS are are staff members of the World Health Organization. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of the World Health Organization.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine
                Public Health

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article