MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981758658 · doi:10.1097/jnr.0000000000000025

Parenting Style of Women Who Conceived Using In Vitro Fertilization

2014· review· en· W1981758658 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu‐Ming Wang, Bih‐Ching Shu, Susan Fetzer, Ying‐Ju Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Research · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyIn vitro fertilisationInfertilityIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionClinical psychologyInclusion (mineral)Parenting stylesAutonomyPsychological interventionPregnancySocial psychologyPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that the mental health of women contributes to their parenting style. However, it remains unclear whether the experience of in vitro fertilization (IVF) affects parenting style. PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess whether there is a difference in parenting styles between women who conceived using IVF and those who conceived naturally. METHODS: This meta-analysis searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL) for relevant articles published between 1978 and 2011. Key words used included parenting, mothering, parent-child relations, childrearing, infertility, assisted reproductive technique, IVF, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Study inclusion criteria were as follows: published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal, with the definition of parenting style categorized as one of two dimensions: warmth and control; quantification of the parenting behaviors; use of a case-controlled study design to compare IVF and natural conceptions; and reported data sufficient to calculate the effect sizes. Studies that included women who conceived using a donor egg or sperm for IVF and those that included women who were either surrogates or in homosexual relationships were excluded. Three hundred ninety studies were identified. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise the quality of the data. RESULTS: The IVF participants used significantly greater controlling parenting behaviors than their natural conception participant peers (d = 0.148, p < .01). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of parenting behaviors related to warmth, rejection, or respect for autonomy. The homogeneity test for the effect size of warmth and controlling parenting behavior achieved significance. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Women who conceive using IVF have slightly but still significantly greater controlling parenting behaviors than women who conceive naturally. The results of this study may help professionals to better understand the parenting style of IVF women and develop appropriate interventions to reduce parenting anxiety and promote the mental health of IVF women.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.363
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing ResearchSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207