No abstract

Relatively little research on infertility focuses exclusively or significantly on men's experiences, particularly in relation to emotional aspects. Evidence that does exist around male infertility suggests that it is a distressing experience for men, due to stigma, threats to masculinity and the perceived need to suppress emotions, and that men and women experience infertility differently.Using thematic analysis, this paper examines the online emoting of men in relation to infertility via forum posts from a men-only infertility discussion board. It was noted that men 'talked' to each other about the emotional burdens of infertility, personal coping strategies and relationships with others. Three major themes were identified following in-depth analysis: 'the emotional rollercoaster'; 'the tyranny of infertility'; and 'infertility paranoia'. This paper then offers insights into how men experience infertility emotionally, negotiate the emotional challenges involved (especially pertaining to diagnosis, treatment outcomes and their intimate relationships), and how they share, (and find value in doing so) with other men with lived experience of infertility.

Men's experiences of infertility help seeking are under research and thus less widely understood, with men's needs for support often missing from reproductive research knowledge. This paper presents qualitative thematic analysis of peer-to-peer posts within the context of a UK men only online infertility forum. The key themes demonstrate men value male support from those with experience, and that masculinity influences making help requests and frames men's actions and accounts. Online spaces offer men access to potentially valuable support, although more research across other online spaces/settings is required in order to inform practice around supporting men in the reproductive realm.

Although recent research has highlighted the distressing impact of infertility for men, fertility issues are still routinely seen as a ‘women's issue’ – even when male factor infertility is highlighted. This article reports findings from a qualitative questionnaire study focusing on a sample of men with a male factor infertility diagnosis; an under‐researched and marginalised group in the context of reproductive medicine. Our analysis suggests that male factor infertility is viewed by men as a failure of masculinity, as stigmatising and silencing, and as an isolating and traumatic experience. It is also clear that these themes are shaped by wider societal discourses which present men as (unproblematically) fertile, uninvested in parenthood and stoic in their approach to emotional distress. Such norms also ensure that reproduction continues to be presented as a ‘women's issue’ which burdens women and marginalises men. In understanding male factor infertility experiences, the damaging nature of the social construction of male fertility is then more clearly illuminated.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had enormous effects on health, wellbeing, and economies worldwide. Governments have responded with rapid and sometimes radical public health interventions. As nations grapple with the question of how to regain normality without unnecessarily endangering lives or healthcare systems, some scientists have argued for policies to encourage or compel the use of face coverings in community (nonclinical) settings, despite acknowledged gaps in the evidence base for the effectiveness of such a measure. This commentary has two objectives. First, in the face of strong arguments that face coverings are a commonsense intervention, with negligible downsides, that can only do good, we make the case for caution in changing policy. Many seemingly benign public health interventions have the potential to cause harm, and that harm is often socially differentiated. We present five arguments for caution in policy change. Second, we reflect on the wider implications of the increasingly overt approaches to policy advocacy taken by some scientists. Drawing from the theory of post-normal science, we argue that the science-policy interface in the case of face coverings has taken a surprisingly traditional form, falling short of interdisciplinary integration and failing to incorporate insights of the full range of relevant experts and affected stakeholders. We sketch a vision for an alternative, more mature, relationship between science and society that accepts uncertainty, embraces deliberation, and rises to the challenge of developing knowledge to improve public health.

Utilising online data within qualitative research is becoming increasingly common, particularly as it offers a useful means for engaging with sensitive topics and accessing social actors in more ‘naturalistic’ settings. However, researching sensitive topics online can expose researchers to a range of emotional narratives, yet researcher emotion remains an area which is relatively underexplored in relation to online qualitative research. This article then reflects on the emotional implications of qualitative research online through the case study of online infertility research. Three themes are highlighted: what happened next?; empathy from afar, and emotional detachment and these reflect on how emotion can be manifest and utilised, and the strategies that can be adopted to facilitate the negotiation of researching emotive and sensitive topics in online settings. Drawing on Campbell’s (2001) ideas, the article then sets out what the notion of what ‘emotionally engaged online research’ may look like.

No abstract

This article examines the qualitative research literature that exists in relation to men’s experiences of male infertility. Since men have often been marginalized in the realm of reproduction, including academic research on infertility, it is important to focus on any qualitative research that gives voices to male perspectives and concerns. Given the distress documented by studies of infertile women, we focus in particular on the emotive responses and lived experiences of men in relation to infertility. In this article then, we present an analysis of the core themes across 19 qualitative articles, which include “infertility as crisis”; “emoting infertility- men as “being strong”’ “infertility as a source of stigma”; and the “desire for fatherhood.” In light of these insights, we identify key areas for future research and development including men’s emotional responses to infertility, how men seek support for infertility, the intersection between masculinity and infertility, the relationship between the desire to father and infertility, and the outcomes of infertility for men in terms of other aspects of their lives. We suggest that such research would facilitate making the experiences of men more central within our understandings of infertility within a field that has primarily been female focused.