Efficacy of psychological interventions for mental health and pregnancy rates among individuals with infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are highly prevalent among individuals struggling with infertility. Thus, numerous psychological interventions have been adapted to infertility, with the aim of relieving distress as well as increasing pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of psychological interventions on infertility-related distress and pregnancy rates among individuals and/or couples with infertility and to analyse their overall effect. It also sought to examine potential treatment moderators, including intervention length, format and therapeutic approach. SEARCH METHODS: An electronic search of 11 databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, was performed for studies published until January 2022. The inclusion criteria were RCTs conducted on humans and published in English. Psychological outcomes of interest included anxiety, depression, infertility-related distress, wellbeing and marital satisfaction. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to assess the overall quality of the research evidence. OUTCOMES: There were 58 RCTs in total, including 54 which included psychological outcomes and 21 which assessed pregnancy rates. Studies originated from all regions of the world, but nearly half of the studies were from the Middle East. Although a beneficial effect on combined psychological outcomes was found (Hedge's g = 0.82, P < 0.0001), it was moderated by region (P < 0.00001) such that studies from the Middle East exhibited large effects (g = 1.40, P < 0.0001), while the effects were small among studies conducted elsewhere (g = 0.23, P < 0.0001). Statistically adjusting for study region in a meta-regression, neither intervention length, therapeutic approach, therapy format, nor participant gender (P > 0.05) moderated the effect of treatment. A beneficial treatment effect on pregnancy (RR (95% CI) = 1.25 (1.07-1.47), P = 0.005) was not moderated by region, treatment length, approach or format (P > 0.05). Largely due to the lack of high quality RCTs, the quality of the available evidence was rated as low to moderate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This is the first meta-analysis of RCTs testing the effect of psychological interventions on infertility-related distress and pregnancy rates. These findings suggest that in most regions of the world, psychological interventions are associated with small reductions in distress and modest effects on conception, suggesting the need for more effective interventions. These findings must be considered in light of the fact that the majority of the included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias. Rigorously conducted trials are needed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,019 | 0,036 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».