The association between the use of fertility indicators and fecundability in a Danish preconception cohort

Emma Skovgaard Pedersen,Ellen M Mikkelsen,Henrik Toft Sørensen,Elizabeth E Hatch,Lauren A Wise,Kenneth J Rothman,Joseph B Stanford,Anne Sofie Dam Laursen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.13108
2024-08-07
Abstract:Background: The use of fertility indicators to predict ovulation has largely been studied for contraceptive purposes, while less so as fertility-promoting tools. Objective: To investigate the association between fertility indicators and fecundability in Danish women trying to conceive. Methods: Web-based preconception cohort study. We analysed data from 11,328 females aged 18-49 years trying to conceive without fertility treatment for ≤6 menstrual cycles, from the Danish SnartGravid.dk and SnartForældre.dk cohorts (2007-2023). Participants reported the use of fertility indicators (counting days since the last menstrual period, cervical fluid monitoring, urinary ovulation testing, feeling ovulation, using a smartphone fertility app and measuring basal body temperature [BBT]). Time to pregnancy was measured in menstrual cycles ascertained by self-reported pregnancy status. We estimated fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using proportional probabilities regression models adjusted for age, socio-economic position, health indicators, reproductive history and gynaecological factors. Results: Fertility indicators were used by 63.3% of participants at study entry. Counting days was the most common (46.9%), while measuring BBT was the least (3.0%). Other indicators ranged from 17.0% to 23.6%, with 69.7% using more than one indicator. Compared with non-use, use of any fertility indicator was associated with greater fecundability (adjusted FR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08, 1.19). Cervical fluid monitoring showed the strongest association (aFR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03, 2.07), followed by urinary ovulation testing (aFR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16, 1.58) and counting days (aFR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09, 1.29). Feeling ovulation and fertility apps were modestly associated with fecundability, while measuring BBT was not associated. Sensitivity analysis restricting to ≤2 cycles of attempt time and two cycles of follow-up showed an aFR for any indicator use of 1.21 (95% CI 1.13, 1.31). Conclusion: In this Danish preconception cohort, use of fertility indicators was associated with a higher fecundability, varying by type of indicator.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?