Psychosocial Stress and Problems toward Infertility: A Pilot Study of Differences between Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Infertile Couples in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the psychosocial stress and problems regarding infertility and to compare the differences in these two variables on infertile couples in Canada. Fifty infertile, heterosexual individuals were selected as the study participants by convenient sampling. Participants filled out three questionnaires after their infertility appointment and were divided into two groups, depending on their immigration status. The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS.26). Significant differences in infertility stress and psychosocial problems existed between these two groups, with immigrants’ scores significantly higher than nonimmigrants’ scores. Years of marriage showed positive relationships with infertility stress and problems. In addition, a positive relationship existed between years of infertility and infertility problems. Furthermore, a significant negative relationship existed between the length of time living in Canada and infertility stress. The results of this study enhanced our knowledge of psychosocial stress and problems faced by infertile couples. Findings suggest that immigrants had more infertility stress and problems than nonimmigrants. Understanding infertile couples’ stress and problems provides the basis for informing and changing nursing practices on how to work with infertile couples, adjusting health policy related to infertility treatment, and needing future research in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".