The association of psychological well-being and fertility intention in parents of children with intellectual disability: A foundation for reproductive education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Childbearing is an important event in a couple's life. The parents might have children with disability that affected on their well-being after the children's birth. Well-being considered as an important aspect of a couple's quality of life which may alter the future of their fertility. The present study was conducted to the association of psychological well-being and fertility intention in parents with educable intellectually disabled children. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional descriptive research conducted on parents of children with intellectual disability ( n = 386). Parents were selected randomly of schools of exceptional education and welfare. The data were collected using Ryff's scale of psychological well-being, demographic information, and fertility intention questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive and analytical tests including independent t -test, Chi-square test, Mann–Whitney U-test, and Logistic regression. RESULTS: The majority of parents (83.9%) reported the negative infertility intention. Despite the mean score of well-being in parents without fertility intention (75.71 ± 11.67) was lower than parents with fertility intention (76.90 ± 11.27), the difference was not statistically significant ( P > 0.05). The logistic regression analysis indicated that the parents' age and number of children with intellectual disability were predictors of fertility intention ( P < 0.05), and their increase decreased the fertility intention. CONCLUSION: It seems that the lack of difference in psychological well-being scores between the two groups of parents might be due to the equal severity of disability in children. The results also indicated parents' age and the number of children correlated with fertility intention. The findings can be used to advance counseling programs in the field of healthy reproduction for this group of parents.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".