You did not turn up… I did not realise I was invited…: understanding male attitudes towards engagement in fertility and reproductive health discussions
- PMID: 31218265
- PMCID: PMC6573469
- DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoz014
You did not turn up… I did not realise I was invited…: understanding male attitudes towards engagement in fertility and reproductive health discussions
Abstract
Study question: What are the underlying reasons for low male engagement in fertility and reproductive health discussions and decision-making?
Summary answer: The perception of women's primacy in fertility and reproductive health limits the extent to which men believe their engagement is important.
What is known already: Active participation of men in the process of informed decision-making regarding childbearing is beneficial for mother, father, and child. However, in research studies in these areas, little attention has been given to men. Additionally, there is poor engagement by men, as well as a dearth of information from, and on, the male perspective.
Study design size duration: In total, 35 semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted in an office setting with three groups: 13 lay women, 13 lay men, and 9 (2 male and 7 female) healthcare professionals. Interviews took place between October 2016 and February 2017.
Participants/materials setting methods: Participants were men and women of reproductive age from the general population and healthcare professionals who had completed an online fertility awareness survey and agreed to follow-up interviews. Interviews were audio recorded and lasted ~1 hour, during which participants were asked to provide their views on childbearing decision-making, and male and female representation in fertility and reproductive health. Data was transcribed verbatim and analysed qualitatively via framework analysis.
Main results and the role of chance: Both men and women saw fertility as a woman's issue, but from different viewpoints. Women saw it from the perspective of societal stereotypes regarding male and female roles, whereas men tended to defer to the woman's primacy in reproductive decisions. Men generally wanted to be involved in childbearing discussions and improve their fertility knowledge. However, they felt they did not have a voice on the topic because discussions have traditionally focused on women. The notion that men are not expected to be interested and engaged thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Healthcare professionals agreed that fertility was perceived as the woman's domain, but also highlighted that poor male involvement is typically observed across healthcare needs and is not necessarily unique to fertility and reproductive health.
Limitations reasons for caution: Due to the online recruitment method, there is a potential bias towards respondents of higher, rather than lower, socioeconomic status within the general population.
Wider implications of the findings: Fertility tends to be seen as a private topic. Additional concerted effort by reproductive health researchers, charity organisations, educators, healthcare service providers, and policy makers is needed to proactively encourage male involvement in reproductive decision-making. This can be achieved through normalising and breaking taboos around the topic, male-friendly research study design approaches, male-inclusive reproductive healthcare services, implementation of health policies that recognise the needs of men, encouraging male research staff representation, and age-appropriate educational programmes on sexual and reproductive health, which include boys and adolescents from a young age.
Study funding/competing interests: Research funding was received from SPD Development Co. Ltd. B.G. and S.J. are employed by SPD Development Co. Ltd. None of the other authors have any conflict of interest related to the discussed topic.
Trial registration number: Not applicable.
Keywords: childbearing; family building; fatherhood; fertility awareness; men’s health; preconception health psychosocial issues; qualitative research; relationships and sex education; reproductive health.
Similar articles
-
What does family building mean? A qualitative exploration and a new definition: a UK-based study.Reprod Health. 2022 Oct 28;19(1):203. doi: 10.1186/s12978-022-01511-w. Reprod Health. 2022. PMID: 36307844 Free PMC article.
-
The ABC of reproductive intentions: a mixed-methods study exploring the spectrum of attitudes towards family building.Hum Reprod. 2022 May 3;37(5):988-996. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac036. Hum Reprod. 2022. PMID: 35238351 Free PMC article.
-
Women's perceptions of fertility assessment and counselling 6 years after attending a Fertility Assessment and Counselling clinic in Denmark.Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Oct 5;2020(4):hoaa036. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa036. eCollection 2020. Hum Reprod Open. 2020. PMID: 33043154 Free PMC article.
-
Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.Fertil Steril. 2021 Jan;115(1):180-190. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.014. Epub 2020 Nov 30. Fertil Steril. 2021. PMID: 33272617
-
Impact of summer programmes on the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people: A systematic review.Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 13;20(2):e1406. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1406. eCollection 2024 Jun. Campbell Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38873396 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
What does family building mean? A qualitative exploration and a new definition: a UK-based study.Reprod Health. 2022 Oct 28;19(1):203. doi: 10.1186/s12978-022-01511-w. Reprod Health. 2022. PMID: 36307844 Free PMC article.
-
Risky Business: Increasing Fertility Knowledge of Men in the General Public Using the Mobile Health Application Infotility XY.Am J Mens Health. 2021 Sep-Oct;15(5):15579883211049027. doi: 10.1177/15579883211049027. Am J Mens Health. 2021. PMID: 34697968 Free PMC article.
-
Digital insights: Analyzing the reproductive intentions and influencing factors among urban women in China through online platforms.PLoS One. 2025 Jul 28;20(7):e0327570. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0327570. eCollection 2025. PLoS One. 2025. PMID: 40720436 Free PMC article.
-
Preconditions to parenthood: changes over time and generations.Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2021 May 14;13:14-23. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2021.03.003. eCollection 2021 Aug. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2021. PMID: 34136667 Free PMC article.
-
Perception of men's need for preconception care-A qualitative exploration among health care providers and community members.Front Public Health. 2022 Nov 29;10:958618. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.958618. eCollection 2022. Front Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36523582 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Barnes L.W., 2014. Conceiving Masculinity: Male Infertility, Medicine, and Identity. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84944732929&partnerID...(14 December 2019, date last accessed).
-
- Bhasin S. A perspective on the evolving landscape in male reproductive medicine. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016;101:827–836. - PubMed
-
- Culley L, Hudson N, Lohan M. Where are all the men? The marginalization of men in social scientific research on infertility. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27:225–235. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials