Therapeutic Vaccines: Hope Therapy and Its Effects on Psychiatric Symptoms among Infertile Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infertility is a life crisis which leads to serious psychological problems. The present study aims to investigate the effects of hope therapy as a psychological intervention on psychological distresses among infertile women. The present study was an experimental one. The study population included infertile women referring to gynecology clinics. Women who lived in Jahrom and could take part in psychotherapy sessions, had no chronic physical or mental disorders, suffered from primary infertility, had infertility unknown causes and had no history of miscarriage and stillbirth were selected through convenience sampling method and were divided into control and intervention groups (n=61). Women in the intervention group participated in eight 2-hour sessions for a period of 2 months. Study results revealed that there was a significant difference between the two groups after the intervention. Besides, there was a significant difference between the two groups through paired T-test (p<0.05). Furthermore, results of ANCOVA showed that after eliminating demographic variables, the intervention was effective in the total mean difference of the study groups. It means that the difference between the two groups was resulted from intervention.Hope therapy as a positive psychological approach can improve infertile women's general health and subsequently improve family's health. Therefore, in addition to assisted reproductive techniques, hope therapy is recommended to be presented to infertile people in order to improve the quality of their life and help them adapt with their problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".