MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417450827 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf237

Testing the efficacy of a self-guided psychotherapy intervention for infertility-related distress: a randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4417450827 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Megan M L Poulter, Tyler S. Wahl, Maija J. Kiviharju, Tavis S. Campbell, Jennifer L. Gordon

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Technologies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Regina
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
Mots-clésRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Intention-to-treat analysisMEDLINERandomizationN of 1 trialBrief psychotherapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: Is the online 7-week self-help Coping with Infertility (CWI) program more effective than treatment as usual (TAU) at improving mental health for individuals assigned female at birth (AFAB) who are experiencing infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: AFAB individuals who participated in the CWI program experienced improvements in quality of life, distress, depression, and anxiety relative to TAU; these effects were large among those with poorer quality of life or greater symptoms of depressed mood and anxiety at baseline. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Existing psychological interventions are associated with small improvements in mental health relative to TAU for individuals experiencing infertility. A newly developed, brief tailored intervention has been well received, yet has not been rigorously tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A parallel RCT was conducted between January and November 2024 (start of recruitment and end of data collection, respectively). AFAB adults experiencing infertility were randomly assigned to either the CWI program or a waitlist/TAU control group using a predetermined stratified block randomization scheme. The sample (n = 173) was powered to detect a medium effect on continuous outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: There was an approximately equal number of participants assigned to the CWI program (n = 87) as to the waitlist/TAU control group (n = 86). Participants assigned to the CWI program were emailed one 10-minute video module every week for 7 weeks or received access to the videos on a mobile app. Participants in the waitlist/TAU control group continued with their everyday life until the conclusion of the study. Psychological outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and biweekly for 16 weeks post-treatment. Fourteen participants were either excluded from analyses or lost to follow-up, leaving 160 (CWI program n = 77, waitlist/TAU control group n = 83) for intent-to-treat analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Participants who engaged with the CWI program reported higher fertility-related quality of life throughout the follow-up period relative to those assigned to the waitlist/TAU control group, M (SE) = 63.2 (0.5) versus 54.5 (0.5), Cohen's d = .53, P < .001; as well as lower infertility-related distress, M (SE) = 21.6 (0.2) versus 23.9 (0.2), d = .35, P < .001; depressed mood, M (SE) = 5.3 (0.2) versus 7.7 (0.2), d = .56, P < .001; and anxiety, M (SE) = 5.1 (0.2) versus 7.7 (0.2), d = .66, P < .001. Treatment effects were pronounced for participants with poorer quality of life or clinically significant symptoms of depressed mood and anxiety at baseline, with large effect sizes ranging between Cohen's d = 0.91-1.10 in these subgroups. Treatment effects on relationship quality, mood and anxiety disorders, and pregnancy rates were not statistically significant (P > .05). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The lack of an active control condition, use of self-report data, heterogenous population, and limited follow-up period limit the empirical conclusions that can be drawn from this study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: These results establish the CWI program as an effective short-term therapy option for AFAB individuals who are experiencing reduced quality of life or increased distress, depressed mood, and anxiety during infertility, addressing a significant gap in infertility treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The development and pilot of the CWI program was supported by a Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation (SHRF) Patient-Oriented Leader Award (#4577). The current study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project Grant (#PJT186221) and a SHRF Research Connections Grant (#6447). Neither funding agency was involved in the study design; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication. The authors are fully responsible for the content of this manuscript, and the views and opinions described reflect solely those of the authors. J.L.G. also receives salary support as a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Canada Research Chair. All authors declare that they have no financial, personal, or professional competing interests in the writing of this project. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06006936. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 17 August 2023. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLLMENT: 8 January 2024.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,384
Écart entre enseignants0,335 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2025
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHuman ReproductionMême sujetReproductive Health and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207