Evaluation of preparatory psychosocial counselling for medically assisted reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated couples' perceptions of preparatory psychosocial counselling prior to participation in medically assisted reproduction (MAR). METHODS: Eighty-three couples about to undergo IUI treatment were asked about their expectations regarding a subsequent single psychosocial counselling session and assessed in terms of their levels of infertility-specific stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms. Afterwards, participants rated their satisfaction with different elements of the session. RESULTS: Almost two-thirds of women and one-half of men expected counselling to be important, and the majority anticipated that the session would be helpful and informative. Views of preparatory counselling were significantly more positive afterwards, indicating that a focused session addressing issues of treatment concerns, goal setting and managing infertility stress was more beneficial than anticipated. Those experiencing higher levels of infertility-specific stress expected the counselling session to be more important, and elevated stress and greater utilization of social support were predictive of post-counselling satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Preparatory psychosocial counselling provided with a specific and practical focus appears to be a potentially important and helpful service prior to MAR. Clinics should not assume that patients can accurately judge the benefits of counselling before actually engaging in the session. Identifying patients most likely to benefit and providing a clear rationale may further increase receptivity to this proactive counselling service. While patients characterize this intervention as beneficial, it is not yet known if these benefits translate into improved management of treatment procedures.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".