Psychological and social aspects of infertility in men: an overview of the evidence and implications for psychologically informed clinical care and future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research concerning the psychosocial aspects of infertility and infertility treatment focuses more often on women than men. The aim of this review was to synthesize the English-language evidence related to the psychological and social aspects of infertility in men and discuss the implications of these reports for clinical care and future research. A structured search identified 73 studies that reported data concerning the desire for fatherhood and the psychological and social aspects of diagnosis, assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment and unsuccessful treatment among men with fertility difficulties. The studies are diverse in conceptualisation, design, setting and data collection, but the findings were reasonably consistent. These studies indicated that fertile and infertile childless men of reproductive age have desires to experience parenthood that are similar to those of their female counterparts; in addition, diagnosis and initiation of treatment are associated with elevated infertility-specific anxiety, and unsuccessful treatment can lead to a state of lasting sadness. However, rates of clinically significant mental health problems among this patient population are no higher than in the general population. Infertile men who are socially isolated, have an avoidant coping style and appraise stressful events as overwhelming, are more vulnerable to severe anxiety than men without these characteristics. Men prefer oral to written treatment information and prefer to receive emotional support from infertility clinicians rather than from mental health professionals, self-help support groups or friends. Nevertheless, structured, facilitated psycho-educational groups that are didactic but permit informal sharing of experiences might be beneficial. There are gaps in knowledge about factors governing seeking, persisting with and deciding to cease treatment; experiences of invasive procedures; parenting after assisted conception; adoption and infertility-related grief and shame among men. Few resource-constrained countries have any data concerning male experiences of infertility.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".