Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To determine the prevalence of physical intimate partner violence (IPV) among postpartum women reporting preconception fertility treatment compared with those who conceived without the use of assisted reproduction.
Design: Retrospective cross-sectional population-based study.
Setting: Not applicable.
Patient(s): Postpartum respondents of the Centers for Disease Control Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System survey.
Intervention: Preconception fertility treatment utilization.
Main Outcome Measures: Physical IPV.
Results: Of the 43,999 respondents included in this analytic sample, roughly 2% reported physical IPV. Respondents reporting preconception fertility treatment (12.6%) were less likely to endorse physical IPV than those who conceived without fertility treatment exposure (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.7). In the multivariate regression model, the odds of physical IPV were similar among postpartum women regardless of the fertility treatment exposure (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.0). Residing in a household with an income under the federal poverty level and increased preconception stressors were predictive of reported physical IPV. There was no difference in the type of fertility treatment and report of physical IPV. Among women exposed to fertility treatment, predictors of physical IPV included self-identification of Black or Hispanic race and ethnicity as well as report of 4 or more stressors in the 12 months before the most recent delivery.
Conclusion: The use of fertility treatment did not confer greater risk of physical IPV within this postpartum population. However, there are many individuals with infertility who never present for an assessment, proceed with treatment, or are unsuccessful, thus the extent to which infertility and fertility treatment exposure is associated with physical IPV remains to be elucidated. Women reporting a greater number of stressors may be uniquely at risk despite the access and exposure to fertility treatment. The preconception period, inclusive of encounters with infertility specialists, represents a novel opportunity to screen and counsel all women for IPV.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.11.001 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!