Fertility rates in the UK are at an all-time low, with infertility affecting approximately 1 in 7 couples. Despite the rising demand for fertility services, fertility awareness, specifically knowledge of ovulation and the fertile window, remains low among women of reproductive age. Most existing studies offer a broad perspective, lacking focus on women actively trying to conceive (TTC). This study aims to assess the level of understanding surrounding the fertile window among women TTC, identifying factors associated with knowledge gaps.
Methods
A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 97,414 women actively TTC who answered an online health assessment was conducted. Participants provided information on menstrual cycle characteristics, previous pregnancies, and fertility knowledge, including the timing of the fertile window. Frequencies, percentages were calculated and chi-squared tests performed to assess differences in categorical data. Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) to better understand factors significantly associated with not knowing the fertile window.
Results
Out of the total respondents (97,414), over a third (33,756, 41%) could not accurately identify the fertile window, with substantial misconceptions observed across all age groups and ethnicities. Women with previous pregnancies were more likely to correctly identify the fertile window (OR = 1.45, 97.5% CI: 1.20-1.75, p < 0.001). However, knowledge was significantly lower among those with irregular cycles, non-White ethnicities, younger age groups and longer time TTC. Additionally, misconceptions about cycle regularity were apparent, of 60,322 women describing their cycles as regular 10% did not know their cycle length (66,95) and a further 2.9% fell outside of the clinically regular 21-35 day range. These misconceptions followed a similar trend with younger age groups, non-white ethnicities and longer time TTC having significantly increased rates of misidentifying regular cycles. This further increased the odds of not knowing their fertile window (OR = 2.99, 97.5% CI: 2.83-3.17, p < 0.001).
Conclusions
The findings reveal gaps in fertility awareness among women actively TTC. Addressing these knowledge gaps through targeted educational interventions could potentially reduce time-to-pregnancy and the reliance on assisted reproductive technologies. Improved fertility education focusing on cycle tracking and ovulation timing is essential to assist women with accurate information during their TTC journey.
fertility awareness trying to conceive knowledge gaps, fertile window misconceptions 97414 women UK study, ovulation timing knowledge women actively TTC, Wainwright Ali O'Neill Hertility fertility literacy, menstrual cycle tracking education reproductive awareness, irregular cycles fertile window identification barriers, ethnicity age fertility awareness disparities, time to pregnancy reduction fertility education, cycle regularity misconceptions self-reported data, reproductive education intervention TTC population
PMID 40846945 40846945 DOI 10.1186/s12978-025-02079-x 10.1186/s12978-025-02079-x
Cite this article
Wainwright, E., Ali, Z., Lawrie, L., Getreu, N., & O'NEILL, H. (2025). Fertility awareness in 97,414 women trying to conceive: gaps, misconceptions, and implications for reproductive education. Reproductive health, 22(1), 152. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-025-02079-x
Wainwright E, Ali Z, Lawrie L, Getreu N, O'NEILL H. Fertility awareness in 97,414 women trying to conceive: gaps, misconceptions, and implications for reproductive education. Reprod Health. 2025;22(1):152. doi:10.1186/s12978-025-02079-x
Wainwright, Esther, et al. "Fertility awareness in 97,414 women trying to conceive: gaps, misconceptions, and implications for reproductive education." Reproductive health, vol. 22, no. 1, 2025, pp. 152.
In vitro fertilization (IVF) births contribute to a considerable proportion of preterm birth (PTB) each year. However, there is no formal surveillance of adverse perinatal outcomes for less invasive fertility treatments. The study objective was to describe associations between fertility treatment (in vitro fertilization, intrauterine insemination, usually with ovulation drugs (IUI), or ovulation drugs alone) and preterm birth, compared to no treatment in subfertile women. The Fertility Experiences Study (FES) is a retrospective cohort study conducted at the University of Utah between April 2010 and September 2012. Women with a history of primary subfertility self-reported treatment data via survey and interviews. Participant data were linked to birth certificates and fetal death records to asses for perinatal outcomes, particularly preterm birth. A total 487 birth certificates and 3 fetal death records were linked as first births for study participants who completed questionnaires. Among linked births, 19% had a PTB. After adjustment for maternal age, paternal age, maternal education, annual income, religious affiliation, female or male fertility diagnosis, and duration of subfertility, the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for PTB were 2.17 (CI 0.99, 4.75) for births conceived using ovulation drugs, 3.17 (CI 1.4, 7.19) for neonates conceived using IUI and 4.24 (CI 2.05, 8.77) for neonates conceived by IVF, compared to women with subfertility who used no treatment during the month of conception. A reported diagnosis of female factor infertility increased the adjusted odds of having a PTB 2.99 (CI 1.5, 5.97). Duration of pregnancy attempt was not independently associated with PTB. In restricting analyses to singleton gestation, odds ratios were not significant for any type of treatment. IVF, IUI, and ovulation drugs were all associated with a higher incidence of preterm birth and low birth weight, predominantly related to multiple gestation births.
Contraception/ComparisonGeneral OB/GYN
Open Access
Multiple contraindications to combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) use exist. The impact of these factors on contraceptive choice, particularly among women living with HIV (WLWH), is not well understood. We measured and compared the prevalence of contraceptive use and contraindications among WLWH and women not living with HIV (controls). We examined cross-sectional survey and medical chart data from 83 WLWH and 62 controls, aged 16-49 and sexually active, from 2013-2017. We compared the age-adjusted prevalence and types of contraceptives used in the last month and the proportion of women with CHC contraindications, including drug interactions, medical comorbidities, and smoking at ≥ 35 years old. All WLWH received care at an interdisciplinary, women-centred HIV clinic. Compared to controls, WLWH were older (median [IQR)] 39 [34-43] vs 31 [23-41] years; p = 0.003), had less post-secondary education (37% vs 73%; p < 0.001), and more often had household income < $15,000/year (49% vs 30%; p = 0.006). WLWH trended to higher contraceptive prevalence than controls (80% vs 63%; p = 0.06 adjusted for age). Overall hormonal contraceptive use was similar. However, despite controlling for age, WLWH used CHC less (4% vs 18%; p = 0.006) than controls, and had more frequently undergone tubal ligation (12% vs 2%; p = 0.03). WLWH also experienced more CHC contraindications (54% vs 13%; p = 0.0001), including smoking at ≥ 35 years old (30% vs 6%; p = 0.0003) or a CHC-related drug interaction (all antiretroviral related) (25% vs 0%; p = 0.0001). WLWH attending our interdisciplinary clinic used hormonal contraception at similar rates as controls, though with different types. Differences may reflect different distributions of CHC contraindications. CHC contraindications present barriers to accessing the full range of contraceptive choices for WLWH. Guidelines and education for care providers and WLWH regarding contraceptive choices and drug interactions are needed, especially when care is provided without the benefit of an interdisciplinary women-centered healthcare team.
Many women throughout the world have history of subfertility (resolved or unresolved), but much remains unknown about services and treatments chosen. We developed a mixed-mode fertility experiences questionnaire (FEQ) in 2009 through literature review and iterative pilot work to optimize question format and mode of administration. The focus of the FEQ is to collect data retrospectively on time at risk for pregnancy, fertility treatments received and declined, pregnancy, time to pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes. We conducted a validation of key elements of the FEQ with comparison to medical records in 2009 and 2010. The validation sample was selected from women initially seen at a specialized fertility treatment center in Utah in 2004. The FEQ was 1) written (paper or web-based), self-administered, followed by 2) telephoneadministered questions. In 63 patients analyzed, high levels of correlation were identified between patient self-report and medical records for the use of intrauterine insemination and assisted reproductive technology, pregnancy and live birth histories, time at risk for pregnancy and time to pregnancy. There was low correlation between medical records and self-report for the use of oral ovulation drugs and injectable ovulation drugs. Compared to the medical record, the FEQ was over 90% sensitive for all elements, except injectable ovulation drugs (70% sensitivity). The FEQ accurately captured elements of fertility treatment history at 5-6 years after the first visit to a specialty clinic.
Introducing a new method into family planning programs requires careful attention to ensure it meets an actual need and has a positive effect on program goals. The Standard Days Method® is a fertility awareness-based method of family planning that is being introduced into family planning programs in countries around the world. It is different from other methods offered by programs, and may bring new couples into family planning, and increase contraceptive prevalence. The study assesses the effect on contraceptive use and prevalence of Introducing Standard Days Method into existing family planning services in whole regions of India, Peru, and Rwanda. In collaboration with the Ministry of Health, health providers were given a contraceptive update on all methods, then trained in counseling on Standard Days Method. Efforts were made to promote demand in the context of informed choice. Routine monthly service statistics in control and intervention areas were used to assess the effect of Standard Days Method introduction at the clinic level; baseline and endline household-based surveys were undertaken to obtain results at the community level (n > 3400 women at endline). Demand for the method is evident in countries with different levels of contraceptive prevalence. The method attracts couples new to family planning, and introducing it into services may increase overall contraceptive prevalence. Introducing Standard Days Method into existing family planning has the potential of benefiting men and women in diverse settings and populations. This study illustrates the critical role of evidence in scaling up a health innovation.