title: Preimplantation sex selection demand and preferences among infertility patients in Midwestern United States.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine the demand and preferences of infertility patients for sex selection for nonmedical reasons, and to investigate the relation between these choices and their demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.
  
  
  METHODS
  A cross-sectional, self-administered survey by mail was conducted at a University hospital-based fertility center of 1,350 consecutive women who presented for infertility care, to assess patient demand and preferences for sex selection.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of respondents, 49% wanted to select the sex of their next child for no added cost. Of these patients, 56% had no living children and 37% had children all of one sex. After adjustment for observed predictors of gender preference, we found a significant preference for a female child among women who had only sons, had more living children, or were single. Nulliparous women did not significantly prefer one sex over the other. Among parous women, those with only daughters significantly desired to select a male child, whereas those with sons significantly desired to select a female child.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is significant demand among infertility patients for preimplantation sex selection, with a significant portion of this demand coming from patients who do not have any children or have children all of one sex.
authors: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
authors: Stacey A
authors: SA
authors: Missmer
authors: Tarun
authors: T
authors: Jain
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001290:Attitude; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007247:Infertility, Female / Q000523:psychology*; D015146:Midwestern United States; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D012743:Sex Preselection; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
references: Hum Reprod. 1999 Apr;14(4):868-70
references: 10221209
references: Hum Reprod. 1998 Sep;13(9):2367-70
references: 9806249
references: Reprod Biomed Online. 2005 Mar;10(3):310-9
references: 15820035
references: Fertil Steril. 2006 Feb;85(2):468-73
references: 16595229
references: Fertil Steril. 2001 May;75(5):861-4
references: 11334894
references: Hum Reprod. 2002 Jan;17(1):233-46
references: 11756394
references: BMJ. 2002 May 25;324(7348):1233
references: 12028966
references: Fertil Steril. 2002 Sep;78(3):463
references: 12215317
references: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002 Sep;19(9):400-10
references: 12408533
references: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002 Sep;19(9):411-6
references: 12408534
references: N Y Times Web. 2003 Oct 17;:A18
references: 14610771
references: BMJ. 2003 Dec 6;327(7427):1297-8
references: 14656808
references: Newsweek. 2004 Jan 26;143(4):44-52
references: 14959533
references: Lancet. 1989 Feb 18;1(8634):347-9
references: 2464730
references: Am J Public Health. 1989 Mar;79(3):340-9
references: 2916724
references: Nature. 1990 Apr 19;344(6268):768-70
references: 2330030
references: Hum Reprod. 1993 Oct;8(10):1733-9
references: 8300839
references: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Aug;103(8):784-8
references: 8760708
references: Hum Reprod. 1998 Feb;13(2):308-12
references: 9557828
references: Fertil Steril. 2005 Mar;83(3):649-58
references: 15749494