A Comparative Study of Quality of Life in Infertile and Fertile Women Referred to Jahrom Infertility Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Infertility is a medical problem which influences all the dimensions of one’s individual and social life and can expose him/her to psycho-physical, socio-economic, sexual and family challenges. This study was designed to compare the quality of life of fertile and infertile women. MATERIALS & METHODOLOGY: This is a case-control analytical study in which 180 fertile and infertile women (aged 18-42) participated. The infertile group consisted of women who had visited an infertility treatment clinic. The fertile group consisted of healthy women who had children and had visited a healthcare center in the city of Jahrom. For the case group (n=90), sampling was conducted based on the census method; for the control group (n=90), subjects were selected through stratified random sampling. Data were collected using a questionnaire which had two sections: demographic information and the World Health Organization quality of life questionnaire (WHO QOL-BREF). The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 16. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 28.26±4.85 years. 76.5% of the infertility cases were due to female infertility and 5.9% were due to male infertility. The results showed that there was a significant difference between the infertile and fertile groups in their overall satisfaction with life levels (p=0.002). There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean scores of somatic, psychological, social and environmental dimensions (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Considering the results of the present research, it seems that factors like acceptance of infertility by couples, hope for present medical solutions to be effective, use of support plans and recent advancements in technology are possible reasons for the absence of difference between the infertile and fertile groups in quality of life.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".