Factors Associated With Marital Satisfaction in Infertile Couple: A Comprehensive Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many factors impact on marital satisfaction. Related factors include demographic factors, assisted reproductive techniques, psychological health, quality of life, psychological, socioeconomic and family support, and sexual function. METHODS: This study is a literature review of research studies conducted on factors associated with marital satisfaction in infertile couples. The current literature review search was undertaken using multiple databases selected from articles pertinent to the study. The selection of subjects was undertaken from1990 through 2015. The methodological quality was analyzed based on a checklist adopted from a systematic review. Quality assessment of full text studies was finally carried out by two reviewers. RESULTS: The initial search yielded a list of 445 papers, and then reviewers studied titles and abstracts. Thereafter, 69 papers were incorporated, and researchers reviewed summaries of all of the searched articles. Finally, the researchers utilized the data gained from 64 full articles so as to compile this review paper. Reviewing the studies conducted on marital satisfaction, they classified related findings into 6 categories: demographic factors, using fertility assisting methods, psychological health, life quality, economic, social, and family support, and sexual function. CONCLUSION: The results of this review article depicted that various factors play role in creating marriage life satisfaction in an infertile couple, so that paying attention to them can play an important role in continuing their treatment. Thus, to identify such factors is considered essential in their treatment protocol highly based on culture. Of the drawbacks of this research is that it has tried at best to employ the studies belonging to diverse countries with different cultures. Also, the number of the papers was considerably limited.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".