4.3 Article

The fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) questionnaire in Taiwanese infertile couples

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2013.04.009

关键词

FertiQoL; gender; infertility; quality of life; questionnaire

资金

  1. Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, R.O.C. (Taiwan) [DOH99-HP-1201]
  2. European Society of Human Reproduction & Embryology (ESHRE)
  3. American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)
  4. Merck-Serono S.A

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To characterize the fertility quality of life (QoL) in Taiwanese infertile couples using an objective measurement tool-the FertiQoL questionnaire, and establish a reference level of QoL for clinical applications and future studies. Materials and Methods: The FertiQoL tool, a self-report questionnaire, was distributed to seven infertility centers across Taiwan for infertile couples who were undergoing the treatment of in vitro fertilization. The online version of the FertiQoL questionnaire was issued on the website of Taiwan Society for Reproductive Medicine and was opened to the public. Results: A total of 534 copies of eligible FertiQoL questionnaires were collected. The total scores for the Core FertiQoL and Treatment FertiQoL are 55.12 +/- 13.72 and 56.40 +/- 10.96, respectively. Both the Core and Treatment FertiQoL were significantly higher in the males of infertile couples than the females (60.63 +/- 14.07 vs. 54.39 +/- 13.52, p = 0.001, and 59.13 +/- 12.44 vs. 56.03 +/- 10.71, p = 0.035, respectively). Significantly better QoL was found in infertile patients in the Southern Taiwan, with a Core FertiQoL of 58.21 +/- 12.70 and a Treatment FertiQoL of 58.79 +/- 10.15. Conclusion: The results of this study provide a baseline QoL in infertile couples in Taiwan, and could potentially be used as a guide for clinical counseling and future works. Copyright (C) 2013, Taiwan Association of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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