Social Consequences of Infertility on Families in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Social reactions to infertility are one of the concerns infertile people. This study aimed to investigate the social consequences of infertility among urban and rural population of Shahroud in northeast of Iran. METHOD: This study is a comparative study that was conducted in 2013. In this study, 1,528 women (511 infertile and 1017 fertile ones) were randomly selected. The 36-item questionnaire included 18 items about women's attitude towards infertility and 18 questions about the consequences of infertility was used. Data were analyzed using chi-square test, one-way analysis of variance and t test. FINDINGS: The prevalence of infertility in rural areas was estimated to be 2.23 percent. 42.2% of the participants were living the city (n= 645) and 57.8 % were living in the village (n= 883). 49.2% of the participants had education below high school diploma (n=751), 31.7% had high school diploma (n=484) and 19.2% had university degrees (n=293). 51.9% of the people referred to the infertility problem among distant relatives, 24.9% referred to infertility among the close relatives and 9% reported the infertility among their family members. The mean score of attitude of the fertile was 56.6±7.0 and that of the infertile was 56.8± 6.6 and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). There was a significant association between fertility status and encouraging divorce, encouraging remarriage and encouraging adoption (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Infertility causes a negative attitude toward infertile people. But the interference of others leads to further encouragement of divorce and remarriage among the infertile people.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".