Inequity of Access: Scoping the Barriers to Assisted Reproductive Technologies

被引:10
|
作者
Mackay, Amanda [1 ]
Taylor, Selina [2 ]
Glass, Beverley [1 ]
机构
[1] James Cook Univ, Coll Med & Dent, Pharm, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia
[2] James Cook Univ, Ctr Rural & Remote Hlth, Mt Isa, Qld 4825, Australia
关键词
in vitro fertilisation; IVF; pharmacist role; rural and remote; PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES; FERTILITY TREATMENT; RACIAL DISPARITIES; CARE; FERTILIZATION; INFERTILITY; PERSPECTIVES; PHARMACIST; WOMEN; HELP;
D O I
10.3390/pharmacy11010017
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Infertility impacts millions of people of reproductive age worldwide, with approximately 10-15% of couples affected. When infertility is present, there are many potential barriers to treatment, leading to inequity of access. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are the mainstay of medical treatment for infertility and include procedures such as in vitro fertilisation. This scoping review aims to explore the barriers to accessing assisted reproductive technologies to highlight a potential role for the pharmacist in addressing these barriers. Five databases, including CINAHL, Emcare, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched using keywords that resulted in 19 studies that explored barriers to initially accessing or continuing ART. Studies identified more than one barrier to accessing ART, with the most mentioned barrier being the geographic location of the patient, with others themed as psychological, financial, minority groups, educational level, and the age of the patient. Recommendations were made to address barriers to accessing ART, which included changes to government regulations to increase health education and promotion of infertility. Pharmacists' accessibility, even in geographically remote locations, places them in an ideal position to address many of the challenges experienced by people accessing infertility treatment to improve outcomes for these people.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Exploring Muslim Communities' Experiences and Barriers While Accessing Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Scoping Review of International Literature
    Hammond, Kate
    Hamidi, Nilab
    JOURNAL OF RELIGION & HEALTH, 2025, 64 (01) : 330 - 368
  • [2] Pharmacists' roles in assisted reproductive technology
    Mackay, Amanda M.
    Taylor, Selina M.
    Glass, Beverley D.
    EXPLORATORY RESEARCH IN CLINICAL AND SOCIAL PHARMACY, 2023, 12
  • [3] Queering reproductive access: reproductive justice in assisted reproductive technologies
    Tam, Michelle W.
    REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 2021, 18 (01)
  • [4] International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART): world report on assisted reproductive technologies, 2013
    Banker, Manish
    Dyer, Silke
    Chambers, Georgina M.
    Ishihara, Osamu
    Kupka, Markus
    de Mouzon, Jacques
    Zegers-Hochschild, Fernando
    Adamson, G. David
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2021, 116 (03) : 741 - 756
  • [5] Socio-economic disparities in access to assisted reproductive technologies in Australia
    Harris, Katie
    Burley, Hugh
    McLachlan, Robert
    Bowman, Mark
    Macaldowie, Alan
    Taylor, Kate
    Chapman, Michael
    Chambers, Georgina Mary
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2016, 33 (05) : 575 - 584
  • [6] Addressing the emotional barriers to access to reproductive care
    Rich, Camilla W.
    Domar, Alice D.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2016, 105 (05) : 1124 - 1127
  • [7] Assisted reproductive technologies in India
    Mukherjee M.
    Nadimipally S.B.
    Development, 2006, 49 (4) : 128 - 134
  • [8] Assisted reproductive technologies place
    Amar-Hoffet, A.
    Hedon, B.
    Belaisch-Allart, J.
    JOURNAL DE GYNECOLOGIE OBSTETRIQUE ET BIOLOGIE DE LA REPRODUCTION, 2010, 39 (08): : S88 - S99
  • [9] Reproductive tract microbiome in assisted reproductive technologies
    Franasiak, Jason M.
    Scott, Richard T., Jr.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2015, 104 (06) : 1364 - 1371
  • [10] Economics of assisted reproductive technologies
    Ata, Baris
    Seli, Emre
    CURRENT OPINION IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 22 (03) : 183 - 188