MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082422345 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaa248

Fertility patients under COVID-19: attitudes, perceptions and psychological reactions

2020· article· en· W3082422345 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyDistressFertilityFeelingInfertilityMedicineClinical psychologyPandemicSocial supportPsychologyDiseasePsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PopulationPregnancySocial psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: What are the perceptions of infertility patients and the factors correlating with their psychological distress, following suspension of fertility treatments during the Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic? SUMMARY ANSWER: Most patients preferred to resume treatment given the chance regardless of background characteristics; higher self-mastery and greater perceived social support were associated with lower distress, while feeling helpless was associated with higher distress. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Infertility diagnosis and treatment frequently result in significant psychological distress. Recently published data have shown that clinic closure during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a sharp increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression among infertile patients undergoing IVF and was perceived as an uncontrollable and stressful event. Personal resources play an important protective role in times of crisis, helping reduce levels of distress. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This cross-sectional questionnaire study included patients whose fertility treatment was suspended following the COVID-19 pandemic, in a tertiary hospital. The survey was delivered to 297 patients within 12 days at the beginning of April 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The self-administered questionnaire included items addressing: (i) patients' demographic characteristics, (ii) anxiety related to COVID-19 infection risk and level of social support, (iii) patients' perceptions of the new guidelines and description of subsequently related emotions and (iv) two validated scales assessing levels of emotional distress and self-mastery. Multivariate analysis was conducted to assess factors alleviating or increasing emotional distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 168 patients who completed the survey, giving a response rate of 57%. Study variables in the regression model explained 38.9% of the variance in psychological distress experienced by patients during treatment suspension. None of the background characteristics (e.g. age, marital status, parity, economic level or duration of treatments) had a significant contribution. Feeling helpless following the suspension of treatments was associated with higher distress (P < 0.01). Higher self-mastery and greater perceived social support were associated with lower distress (P < 0.01). Despite the ministry of health's decision, 72% of patients wished to resume treatment at the time of survey. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a cross-sectional study, thus information about patients' characteristics prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was not available. The length and implications of this pandemic are unknown. Therefore, the ability to draw conclusions about the psychological consequences of the crisis is limited at this point of time. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Personal resources play an important protective role in times of crisis, helping to reduce levels of distress. Study findings suggest that attention should be paid to strengthening and empowering patients' personal resources together with directly confronting and containing feelings of helplessness. In line with the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guidelines, especially at this time of high levels of distress, it is imperative to offer emotional support to reduce stress and concerns. Furthermore, as the pandemic is stabilizing, resumption of treatment should be considered as soon as appropriate according to local conditions. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the IVF unit of the Shamir Medical Center. All authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it