4.4 Article

Reproductive implications of psychological distress for couples undergoing IVF

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
卷 30, 期 11, 页码 1451-1458

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-013-0098-7

关键词

Stress; Mood; Dysphoria; Pessimism; POMS; LOT; Infertility; IVF

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [K12 RR017672] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To study implications of psychological distress on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome of an infertile couple. Prospective study in an academic infertility practice setting. Couples undergoing embryo transfer (ET) following IVF were offered participation. Female patient (n = 89) and partner (n = 77) completed questionnaires reflecting dysphoria (POMS) and pessimism (LOT) after undergoing ET. Relationship between dysphoria and pessimism and implications of individual and couple's psychological distress on IVF cycle parameters and outcomes were assessed using multivariable analyses. Statistically significant correlations between dysphoria and pessimism were observed within the individual and between partners, (p < 0.01). Higher couple pessimism correlated with longer duration of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH, p = 0.02); higher partner psychological distress related to lower fertilization rate (FR, p = 0.03). On adjusted analyses, partner's depression score was an independent predictor of reduced likelihood of clinical pregnancy (p = 0.03). Our data validate the concept of a stressed couple. Adverse implications of a couple's psychological distress for gamete biology (longer duration of COH and lower FR with increasing distress) are suggested. Partner's depressive scores negatively correlated with IVF success. These findings suggest the importance of including partner's evaluation in studies that focus on effects of psychological stress on IVF outcome; future studies should examine whether interventions aimed at reducing psychological stress for the infertile couple may improve IVF cycle success.

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

4.4
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