Public Awareness, Perceptions, and Preferences in Fertility Treatment: Secondary Analysis of Two Public Surveys
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63264/6yy3mw82Keywords:
reproductive medicine, infertility, public opinion, restorative reproductive medicine, In vitro fertilization, delivery of health careAbstract
Objective: This study examined public attitudes toward restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) using secondary analysis and comparative reporting of two independent surveys conducted in the United States. It also explored preferences among individuals with fertility issues and the general population’s views on treatment options.
Method: A secondary analysis was conducted using data from two nationally representative online surveys, designed and administered by organizations independent of the researchers, whose samples demographically reflected the U.S. adult population. The surveys—conducted by J.L. Partners (N=1002) and McLaughlin & Associates (N=1000)—assessed familiarity, acceptance, and attitudes toward IVF and RRM. The J.L. Partners survey focused on IVF, including medical risks, creation and use of embryos, preimplantation genetic testing, arguments for government oversight of IVF, and overall attitudes toward IVF. The McLaughlin survey focused on comparative descriptions of IVF and RRM. Pearson’s Chi-Square tests of independence were used to assess differences in response distributions across demographic subgroups and between survey items of interest.
Findings: Overall, there was strong consistency of responses to items that were similar in the two surveys. Approximately 80% supported IVF initially, although both surveys found respondents to have limited knowledge about IVF procedures. In contrast, 33% supported RRM initially, with 43% having never heard of RRM. After learning more about the characteristics of RRM and IVF approaches, as presented within the surveys, preference shifted toward approaches consistent with RRM (e.g., 69% preference for an approach for natural fertilization in a woman’s body vs. 17% for fertilization in a lab). Respondents prioritized baby health (74%) over cost (13%) and time to conceive (6%). Many IVF patients were concerned about undiagnosed health issues and being rushed into IVF. Overall, 70% wanted treatments that addressed underlying causes; nearly half were unaware of any medical risks of IVF. Stated support for IVF declined by 10% overall after presentation of medical risks, questions about the creation and use of embryos and genetic testing, and arguments to support government oversight of IVF. Both surveys showed strong support for patient access to full information about treatments and treatment processes.
Conclusion: While IVF is widely accepted, these national survey data suggest preferences for fertility treatments that prioritize diagnosis and restoration of natural reproductive health, which is the focus of restorative reproductive medicine. Comprehensive assessment, restoration of healthy function, transparency regarding treatment processes, and sensitivity to ethical concerns in patient care reflect important public values. Greater awareness and public education, improved consent, more research, and ongoing surveys are needed to inform public health strategies and meet patient needs in fertility care.
References
1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development - NICHD [Internet]. Nih.gov. 2020 [cited 2026 Mar 8]. Available from: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/factsheets/infertility
2. Vollset SE, Goren E, Yuan C-W, Cao J, Smith AE, Hsiao T, Bisignano C, Azhar GS, Castro E, Chalek J. et al. Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet 2020;396:1285–1306
3. Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Gregory ECW. Births: Provisional data for 2025. Vital Statistics Rapid Release. 2026 Apr;(43):1–7. doi: https://dx.doi. org/10.15620/cdc/252434 .
4. National Center for Health Statistics. U.S. Births Increase by 1% in 2024 [Internet]. CDC.gov. 2025 [cited 2026 Apr 12]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/releases/20250423.html
5. Henrich N, Jahnke HR. 2025. Mental Health Across the Conception Journey: Trying To Conceive Without Treatment, Considering Treatment, and with Treatment. Matern Child Health J. 2025 Oct;29(10):1360-1365. doi: 10.1007/s10995-025-04157-9. Epub Sep 9.
6. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet. 1978 Aug 12;2(8085):366. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(78)92957-4. PMID: 79723.
7. Yovich JL, Craft IL. Founding Pioneers of IVF: Independent innovative researchers generating livebirths within 4 years of the first birth. Reprod Biol. 2018 Dec;18(4):317-323. doi: 10.1016/j.repbio.2018.11.004. Epub 2018 Dec 1.
8. Dyer S, Chambers GM, Jwa SC, Baker V, Banker M, de Mouzon J, Elgindy E, Fu B, Ishihara O, Kupka MS, Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: assisted reproductive technology, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.06.003
9. Adamson GD, Creighton P, de Mouzon J, Zegers-Hochschild F, Dyer S, Chambers GM. How many infants have been born with the help of assisted reproductive technology? Fertil Steril. 2025 Jul;124(1):40-50. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.02.009. Epub 2025 Feb 11.
10. Boyle P. Understanding Restorative Reproductive Medicine. Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine. 2025 Sept 17; 1:7:1–2. https://doi.org/10.63264/f0b0xh81
11. Stanford JB, Carpentier PA, Meier BL, Rollo M, Tingey B. Restorative reproductive medicine for infertility in two family medicine clinics in New England, an observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Jul 7;21(1):495. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03946-8.
12. Sanchez-Mendez JI, Lombarte M, Abengozar-Muela R, Acosta-Diez J, Alonso-Fernandez P, Canones-Castanon MP, Calderon-Ruiz O, Espinosa-Garcia E, Galocha-Morgado C, Siegrist J et al. Natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology) for infertility: take-home baby rate and clinical outcomes in a 5-year single-center cohort of 1,310 couples. Front Reprod Health 2025;7: 1696679.
13. Boyle PC, de Groot T, Andralojc KM, Parnell TA. Healthy Singleton Pregnancies From Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) After Failed IVF. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Jul 31;5:210. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00210.
14. Boyle P, Toth A, Minjeur M, Turczynski C. 2025. Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) outcomes compared to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for the treatment of infertility: a retrospective evaluation of a 2019 clinic cohort compared to one cycle of IVF. J Restorative Reprod Med. https://doi.org/10.63264/gejytw70
15. The Heritage Foundation, J.L. Partners. Americans’ knowledge of and opinions about in vitro fertilization (IVF) [Internet]. Washington (DC): The Heritage Foundation; 2025. Available from: https://static.heritage.org/-2025/IVF_Poll.pdf
16. Women's Reproductive Health Foundation. National Infertility Experience Survey [Internet]. womensrhf.org. 2025 [cited 2026 Mar 8]. Available from: https://www.womensrhf.org/ [Special Projects]
17. Bureau UC. Census.gov | U.S. Census Bureau Homepage [Internet]. Census.gov. 2025 [cited 2025 Aug 22]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/
18. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Zhang Y, et al. Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance — United States, 2018. MMWR Surveill Summ 2022;71(No. SS-4):1–19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7104a1
19. Belanoff C, Declercq ER, Diop H, Gopal D, Kotelchuck M, Luke B, Nguyen T, Stern JE. Severe Maternal Morbidity and the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology in Massachusetts. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;127(3):527-534. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001292.
20. Vaajala M, Liukkonen R, Ponkilainen V, Mattila VM, Kekki M, Kuitunen I. In vitro fertilization increases the odds of gestational diabetes: a nationwide register-based cohort study. Acta Diabetol. 2023 Feb;60(2):319-321. doi: 10.1007/s00592-022-01975-z. Epub 2022 Oct 22.
21. Reeder MR, Stanford JB, Porucznik CA, Schliep KC, Johnstone E, Botto LD, Hotaling J. Neonatal characteristics of children conceived with in vitro fertilization or intrauterine insemination compared with sibling births from unassisted conceptions. Fertil Steril 2026;125: 326–337.
22. Summers J, Ecker JL, Hearns-Stokes R. Perinatal risks associated with assisted reproductive technology. In Committee on Obstetric Practice and Committee on Genetics. 2016. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
23. Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF, King RB, Trumble AC, Sundaram R, Buck Louis GM. Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil Steril 2013;99: 1324–1331.
24. Arraztoa JA. Commentary on infertility and restorative reproductive medicine. J Restorative Reprod Med 2025; 1–5. https://doi.org/10.63264/7eg52623
25. Gusmano MK, Maschke KJ, Solomon MZ. Patient-Centered Care, Yes; Patients As Consumers, No. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Mar;38(3):368-373. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05019. PMID: 30830817.
26. Duthie EA, Cooper A, Davis JB, Schoyer KD, Sandlow J, Strawn EY, Flynn KE. A conceptual framework for patient-centered fertility treatment. Reprod Health. 2017 Sep 7;14(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s12978-017-0375-5.
27. Mounce G, Allan HT, Carey N. 'Just have some IVF!': A longitudinal ethnographic study of couples' experiences of seeking fertility treatment. Sociol Health Illn. 2022;44(2):308-327. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.13429
28. Kamphuis EI, Bhattacharya S, van der Veen F, Mol BW, Templeton A; Evidence Based IVF Group. Are we overusing IVF?. BMJ. 2014;348:g252. Published 2014 Jan 28. doi:10.1136/bmj.g252
29. Infertility prevalence estimates, 1990–2021. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
30. National Center for Health Statistics. Cdc.gov. Published March 17, 2025. Accessed August 22, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/infertility.html
Additional Files
Published
Data Availability Statement
The data reported in this article include publicly available survey results as well as raw data from the McL survey provided to the authors by the survey investigators. Raw McL survey data are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tracey A. Parnell, Kathleen Copeland, Monica Minjeur
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
CC-BY-4.0 permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.