Recent evidence indicates that reproductive-age people have inadequate fertility awareness (FA) concerning fertility, infertility risk factors, and consequences of delaying childbearing. However, no study has tried to summarize these studies and to clarify the variables associated with FA, namely the role of gender, age, education, and reproductive status on FA. A literature search up to February 2017 was conducted using the EBSCO, Web of Science, Scielo, and Scopus electronic databases with combinations of keywords and MeSH terms (e.g. 'awareness' OR 'health knowledge, attitudes, practice' AND 'fertility'; 'fertile period'; 'assisted reprod*'). Seventy-one articles met the eligibility criteria and were included. The main results showed that participants report low-to-moderate FA. Higher levels of FA were shown by women, highly educated individuals, people who reported difficulties with conceiving, and those who had planned their pregnancies. Having or desiring to have children was not related to FA level. An inconsistent association between study participant age and FA was observed, with some studies indicating that older participants had higher FA, but others found an opposite result or did not find any association. The current findings suggest that interventions to increase FA are warranted, especially those targeting men, people with low education, and in family planning settings. Interventions and campaigns should be customized to meet individuals' needs regarding FA. Because of the high heterogeneity regarding the assessment of FA, these conclusions must be interpreted with caution.

Is perceived social support from partner, family, and friends associated with increased infertility-related stress? While men's perceived support did not seem to influence their partners' stress, women's perceptions of spousal and familial support can affect the way men deal with the challenge of infertility. Previous studies showed that low levels of social support are associated with poor psychosocial adjustment and treatment termination in women and men. Studies examining the impact of social support using the couple as unit of analysis are lacking. A cross-sectional sample of 613 Portuguese patients participated in the research, online over a 3-month period, and in a public fertility clinic over 11 months. The final sample comprised 213 married or cohabiting couples (191 from the fertility clinic) who were actively attempting to have a child, were seeking infertility treatment and had not undergone previous preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Perceived social support was assessed through the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support and infertility-related stress was assessed with the fertility problem inventory. Hypotheses were tested by applying the actor–partner interdependence model using structural equation modeling. Couples had been living together for an average (±SD) of 6 ± 3.5 years, and attempting a pregnancy for 3.8 ± 2.6 years. Nearly half of the couples had undergone infertility treatment (41.3%). Infertility stress was found to be associated with low family support for women (β = −0.27, P = .003), and low partner support for both men (β = −0.29, P = .001) and women (β = −0.45, P = .006). Both women and men's perceived friend support were not significantly related to male or female infertility stress. Men infertility stress was also associated with their partners low levels of partner (β = −0.24, P = .049) and family support (β = −0.23, P < .001). No significant partner effects were observed for women. Despite being related to actor effects alone (female partner and family support), the explained variance of the model in women's fertility stress was greater (R² = 21%) than that (R² = 15.6%) for the combined actor and partner effects in men's fertility stress (male partner support, female partner and family support). The study data are cross-sectional and the generalizability of results is limited by self-selection. The characteristics of non-participants in both the clinical and online samples were not available, the perception of infertility-specific supportive behaviors was not assessed and differential analyses according to infertility diagnosis were not included in this study. Our data underline the importance of partner support in alleviating the burden of infertility. Men may experience infertility indirectly through the impact that it has on their partners. Our findings reinforce the need to involve the male partner throughout the whole treatment process and for couple-based interventions when providing infertility counseling. Further prospective research should be aimed at investigating the male experience of infertility. This research was supported by a PhD scholarship from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology granted to M.M. (FCT, SFRH/BD/44232/2008). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Social support can be a critical component of how a woman adjusts to infertility, yet few studies have investigated its impact on infertility-related coping and stress. We examined relationships between social support contexts and infertility stress domains, and tested if they were mediated by infertility-related coping strategies in a sample of infertile women. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, the Copenhagen Multi-centre Psychosocial Infertility coping scales and the Fertility Problem Inventory were completed by 252 women seeking treatment. Structural equation modeling analysis was used to test the hypothesized multiple mediation model. The final model revealed negative effects from perceived partner support to relationship concern (β = −0.47), sexual concern (β = −0.20) and rejection of childfree lifestyle through meaning-based coping (β = −0.04). Perceived friend support had a negative effect on social concern through active-confronting coping (β = −0.04). Finally, besides a direct negative association with social concern (β = −0.30), perceived family support was indirectly and negatively related with all infertility stress domains (β from −0.04 to −0.13) through a positive effect of active-avoidance coping. The model explained between 12 and 66% of the variance of outcomes. Despite being limited by a convenience sampling and cross-sectional design, results highlight the importance of social support contexts in helping women deal with infertility treatment. Health professionals should explore the quality of social networks and encourage seeking positive support from family and partners. Findings suggest it might prove useful for counselors to use coping skills training interventions, by retraining active-avoidance coping into meaning-based and active-confronting strategies.

Similarly to women, men suffer from engaging in fertility treatments, both physically and psychologically. Although there is a vast body of evidence on the emotional adjustment of women to infertility, there are no systematic reviews focusing on men's psychological adaptation to infertility and related treatments. The main research questions addressed in this review were ‘Does male psychological adaptation to unsuccessful medically assisted reproduction (MAR) treatment vary over time?’ and ‘Which psychosocial variables act as protective or risk factors for psychological maladaptation?’ A literature search was conducted from inception to September 2015 on five databases using combinations of MeSH terms and keywords. Eligible studies had to present quantitative prospective designs and samples including men who did not achieve pregnancy or parenthood at follow-up. A narrative synthesis approach was used to conduct the review. Twelve studies from three continents were eligible from 2534 records identified in the search. The results revealed that psychological symptoms of maladjustment significantly increased in men 1 year after the first fertility evaluation. No significant differences were found two or more years after the initial consultation. Evidence was found for anxiety, depression, active-avoidance coping, catastrophizing, difficulties in partner communication and the use of avoidance or religious coping from the wife as risk factors for psychological maladjustment. Protective factors were related to the use of coping strategies that involve seeking information and attribution of a positive meaning to infertility, having the support of others and of one's spouse, and engaging in open communication about the infertility problem. Our findings recommend an active involvement of men during the treatment process by health care professionals, and the inclusion of coping skills training and couple communication enhancement interventions in counselling. Further prospective large studies with high-quality design and power are warranted.

What information and support should be offered to donors, intended parents and donor-conceived people, in general and in consideration of the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and matching services? For donors, intended parents and donor-conceived offspring, recommendations are made that cover information needs and informed consent, psychosocial implications and disclosure. Trends indicate that the use of donor-assisted conception is growing and guidance is needed to help these recipients/intended parents, the donors and offspring, navigate the rapidly changing environment in which donor-assisted conception takes place. A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations based, where available, on evidence collected from a literature search and expert opinion. Draft recommendations were published for stakeholder review and adapted where relevant based on the comments received. Papers retrieved from PUBMED were included from 1 January 2014 up to 31 August 2020, focusing on studies published since direct-to-consumer genetic testing has become more widespread and accessible. The current paper is limited to reproductive donation performed in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres (and gamete banks): donation outside the medical context was not considered. In total, 32 recommendations were made for information provision and support to donors, 32 for intended parents and 27 for donor-conceived offspring requesting information/support. The available evidence in the area of reproductive donation is limited and diverse with regards to the context and types of donation. General conclusions and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and may need to be adapted in light of future research. These recommendations provide guidance to MAR centres and gamete banks on good practice in information provision and support but should also be considered by regulatory bodies and policymakers at a national and international level to guide regulatory and legislative efforts towards the protection of donors and donor-conceived offspring. The development of this good practice paper was funded by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), covering expenses associated with the WG meetings, the literature searches and dissemination. The WG members did not receive any payment. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ^†ESHRE pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.