4.7 Article

The FAST study: Fertility ASsessment and advice Targeting lifestyle choices and behaviours: a pilot study

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 2396-2404

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des176

关键词

lifestyle; motivational interviewing; fertility; assessment; couple

资金

  1. Robinson Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lifestyle has been shown to affect fertility in both males and females, with compelling evidence that smoking and being under or overweight impairs natural and assisted fertility, and other factors such as stress and caffeine have also been implicated. The objective of this study was to determine whether providing infertile couples with individualized lifestyle assessments and ongoing support facilitates positive lifestyle changes enhancing healthy fertility. We conducted a prospective cohort pilot study of 23 infertile couples attending an Adelaide-based fertility clinic for advice and treatment relating to infertility. The intervention was a comprehensive assessment interview with the couple, focused on health and lifestyle. Motivational interviewing techniques were used and ongoing support provided. The assessment was repeated after 4 months and included an exit questionnaire. The main outcome measure(s) was self-reported lifestyle changes, including increased exercise, modified diet, reduced caffeine and alcohol consumption, ceased or reduced smoking and decreased psychological stress. Following the initial lifestyle assessment interview, all participants reported adverse lifestyle behaviour. The results suggest that the FAST (Fertility ASsessment and advice Targeting lifestyle choices and behaviours) approach of an individualized assessment of current lifestyle practice followed by ongoing one to two weekly telephone support is effective in promoting healthy lifestyle change. Larger studies using this methodology are now required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据