Inconsistent Adoption of World Health Organization V (2010) Semen Analysis Reference Ranges in the United States Six Years After Publication

Objective To determine the percentage of laboratories in the United States that have adopted the World Health Organization 2010 (WHO 5) semen analysis (SA) reference values six years after their publication. Methods Laboratories were identified via three approaches: using the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) website, the CDC's 2015 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinical Success Rate Report, and automated web searches. Laboratories were contacted by phone or email to obtain de-identified SA reports and reference ranges. Results We contacted 617 laboratories in 46 states, of which 208 (26.7%) laboratories in 45 states were included in our analysis. 132 (63.5%) laboratories used WHO 5 criteria, 57 (27.4%) used WHO 4 criteria, and 19 (9.1%) used other criteria. WHO 5 criteria adoption rates varied by geographic region, ranging from 87.5% (35/40) in the Midwest to 50.0% (33/66) in the West. There was a greater adoption rate of WHO 5 reference values in academic affiliated (23/26, 88.5%) compared to non-academic affiliated laboratories (110/182, 60.4%) (P=0.028). Conclusion While the majority of laboratories have adopted WHO 5 criteria following its release six years ago, a large percentage (36.5%) use what is now considered outdated criteria. This variability could result in the characterization of a male's semen values as being “within reference range” at one center and “outside of reference range” at another. This inconsistency in classification may result in confusion for the both patient and physician and potentially shift the burden of infertility evaluation and treatment to the female partner

A Survey of African American Men in Chicago Barbershops: Implications for the Effectiveness of the Barbershop Model in the Health Promotion of African American Men

The barbershop has been used to target African American (AA) men across age groups for health screenings, health interventions, and for research. However, few studies explore the sociodemographic characteristics of barbers and their clients. Additionally, few have evaluated the client's relative comfort with receiving health information and screenings in barbershops and other non-clinical settings. Lastly, it is unknown whether barbers feel capable of influencing health-decision making of AA men. AA male clients and barbers completed a self-administered survey in barbershops in predominantly AA neighborhoods throughout Chicago, Illinois. We assessed sociodemographic characteristics and attitudes towards receiving physical and mental health education and screenings in barbershops and other settings. Barbers were also surveyed regarding their most and least common clients by age group and their perceived ability to influence the decision-making of AA males by age group. AAs surveyed in barbershops have similar rates of high school completion, poverty and unemployment as the AA residents of their neighborhood. AA males prefer to receive health education and screening in clinician offices followed by barbershops and churches. Barbers reported serving males age 18-39 years of age most frequently while men 50 years and older were the least served group. Overall, barbers did not believe they could influence the decision-making of AA men and in the best case scenario, only 33 % felt they could influence young men 18-29 years old. Barbershops reach AA men that are representative of the demographics of the neighborhood where the barbershop is located. Barbers reach a small population of men over age 49 and feel incapable of influencing the decisions of AAs over age 39. Further studies are needed to assess other locales for accessing older AA men and to evaluate the feasibility of mental health interventions and screenings within the barbershop.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10900-016-0152-