Efficacy of psychological interventions for mental health and pregnancy rates among individuals with infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are highly prevalent among individuals struggling with infertility. Thus, numerous psychological interventions have been adapted to infertility, with the aim of relieving distress as well as increasing pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of psychological interventions on infertility-related distress and pregnancy rates among individuals and/or couples with infertility and to analyse their overall effect. It also sought to examine potential treatment moderators, including intervention length, format and therapeutic approach. SEARCH METHODS: An electronic search of 11 databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, was performed for studies published until January 2022. The inclusion criteria were RCTs conducted on humans and published in English. Psychological outcomes of interest included anxiety, depression, infertility-related distress, wellbeing and marital satisfaction. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to assess the overall quality of the research evidence. OUTCOMES: There were 58 RCTs in total, including 54 which included psychological outcomes and 21 which assessed pregnancy rates. Studies originated from all regions of the world, but nearly half of the studies were from the Middle East. Although a beneficial effect on combined psychological outcomes was found (Hedge's g = 0.82, P < 0.0001), it was moderated by region (P < 0.00001) such that studies from the Middle East exhibited large effects (g = 1.40, P < 0.0001), while the effects were small among studies conducted elsewhere (g = 0.23, P < 0.0001). Statistically adjusting for study region in a meta-regression, neither intervention length, therapeutic approach, therapy format, nor participant gender (P > 0.05) moderated the effect of treatment. A beneficial treatment effect on pregnancy (RR (95% CI) = 1.25 (1.07-1.47), P = 0.005) was not moderated by region, treatment length, approach or format (P > 0.05). Largely due to the lack of high quality RCTs, the quality of the available evidence was rated as low to moderate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This is the first meta-analysis of RCTs testing the effect of psychological interventions on infertility-related distress and pregnancy rates. These findings suggest that in most regions of the world, psychological interventions are associated with small reductions in distress and modest effects on conception, suggesting the need for more effective interventions. These findings must be considered in light of the fact that the majority of the included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias. Rigorously conducted trials are needed.
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 | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".