4.6 Article

Reproductive effects of male psychologic stress

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 21-27

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ede.0000100289.82156.8b

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Male psychologic stress can affect semen quality and couple fecundability. Methods: We conducted a prospective study of 430 Danish couples who were trying to become pregnant for the first time. In each menstrual cycle, both partners filled out a 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), an assessment of psychologic stress. A blood sample was drawn from both partners. The men collected a semen sample at enrollment and each month during follow up. Results: Semen quality was not related to the man's GHQ score in either within-subject analyses or between-subject analyses. There were no consistent associations between stress and serum concentration of luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, testosterone, or estradiol. The pregnancy rate was 14% in cycles with an absolute GHQ-12 score in the highest quartile, compared with 18% in low-stress cycles. Odds of pregnancy decreased moderately with increasing score. The effect was confined to 77 men with a sperm density below 20 million/mL (adjusted odds ratio = 0.06; 95% confidence interval = 1.01-0.58 for highest distressed quartile vs. lowest distressed quartile in this low sperm density group). In within-subject analyses, cycle-specific changes in male stress did not change the odds of pregnancy. High absolute score was associated with a lower frequency of sexual intercourse, but adjustment for frequency had little effect. Conclusion: The effect of a man's daily life psychologic stress on his semen quality is small or nonexistent. Our results indicate an effect of stress only on fecundability, and this only among men with low sperm concentration.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available