Analyses of medical coping styles and related factors among female patients undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryonic transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the medical coping styles of female patients treated with in vitro fertilization and embryonic transfer (IVF-ET), and analyzed the effects of alexithymia and social support on their choice of coping style. METHODS: A survey was conducted with 285 female patients undergoing IVF-ET in a reproductive medical center of a third-grade class-A hospital in China using the Medical Coping Modes Questionnaire, the Social Support Rating Scale, and the Toronto Alexithymia scale. RESULTS: Patients who underwent IVF-ET treatment had a higher score for avoidance as a coping mode than did normal controls. Utilization of social support predicted the use of confrontation as a coping style. Difficulty identifying feelings, objective support, and utilization of social support were factors in the choice of avoidance as a coping style, and length of infertility treatment, difficulty identifying feelings, and subjective support predicted patients' use of the acceptance-resignation as a coping style. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo IVF-ET generally select the coping style of avoidance, which is not conducive to treatment. Targeted intervention strategies should be developed based on the factors influencing patients' choice of coping style(s) to guide them in choosing positive coping methods, improve compliance, and achieve successful pregnancy outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".