‘I felt less alone knowing I could contribute to the forum’: psychological distress and use of an online infertility peer support forum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Feelings of loss, shame and stigmatization, reduced quality of life, isolation and loneliness are common among men and women with infertility. Fertility patients may seek peer mentoring and support, specifically through the use of online forums, to fulfil their needs for shared experience and guidance through the fertility treatment process.Objective To assess the use and benefits of an online fertility-related peer support forum through two research questions: (1) do socio-demographics, stress, and anxiety differ between posters on the forum, lurkers who read messages but did not post, and people who chose not to use it?; and (2) how did forum users describe their experiences?Design A sample of 220 male and female fertility patients aged 23–54 years old (M = 35.51, SD = 4.94) were recruited at fertility clinics in Montreal and Toronto, Canada, to test a mobile application called ‘Infotility’. They answered questionnaires before and after being given access to Infotility for eight weeks. The peer support forum was accessible through the Infotility dashboard.Main Outcome Measures Psychological distress was measured through the 4-item Perceived Stress Scale and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale. Experiences using the forum were assessed through open-ended questions and in-depth interviews.Results Participants with heightened psychological distress were more likely to become posters rather than lurkers or non-users and reported less distress after using the forum. Forum users appreciated the opportunity to share their experiences with others in similar situations.Conclusion The forum reduced loneliness and allowed participants to learn new ways to manage stress. It was particularly beneficial for those with heightened psychological distress.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".