Male and Female Infertility in the Quest for Research Support and Public Health Interest: Analysis of Two Large...

Objective  The rate of infertility is increasing and affects males and females relatively equally. With the rise of infertility cases impacting both males and females, there will be an increased need for screening, diagnostic, and treatment modalities to meet the growing demand. However, it is unclear if disparities exist regarding research funding allocation and public interest. The purpose of this study is to compare research expenditure and public interest between male and female infertility. Methods The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER; duration: 1985-2022) and Google Trends (duration: 2004-2023) United States datasets were used to assess research support and public interest, respectively. Data were obtained from the NIH RePORTER, including grants identified by validated MeSH terms and verified with an in-depth review of the project title, abstract, aims, and public health relevance. Terms were searched separately and simultaneously in Google Trends, which provided relative search volume. To assess inferential statistics, Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were performed. Regarding Google Trends, the Wilcoxon test was used to assess changes in the relative search volume over time. Results A total of 589 grants were funded. In aggregate, female infertility had more research funding in total ($100,931,789 vs. $71,684,515). Moreover, female infertility had more funding per grant ($315,192 vs. $286,371; p < 0.0001) compared to male infertility. In Google Trends, the terms (separately) decreased by -38 points (p < 0.0001) for male infertility and -15 points (p = 0.9) for female infertility. When analyzed separately (median: 36 for male infertility vs. 34 for female infertility) and simultaneously (median: 35 for male infertility vs. 14.5 for female infertility), the term "male infertility" had significantly higher relative search volume than "female infertility" (p < 0.0001). Conclusion  Disparities exist in research support and public interest in infertility, with more research support toward female infertility and public interest toward male infertility. Moreover, there was a significant decrease in public interest in male infertility, which could contribute to decreased awareness that could delay diagnosis and treatment. Further research should be devoted to identifying causes for the disparities in research funding allocation and public health interest observed in our study.