Assisted Reproductive Treatments, Quality of Life, and Alexithymia in Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infertility and related treatments can negatively affect a couple's wellbeing. The aim of this study was to evaluate couples starting assisted reproductive treatment, differences in alexithymia and quality of life levels between partners, and the association of these psychological dimensions within the couple's members. Data was collected in two fertility centres in Rome; 47 couples completed the Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL), the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), and a socio-demographic questionnaire. Data analysis showed a worsened quality of life in women compared with their partners, as well as higher externally oriented thinking in men compared with their spouses. Associations between alexithymia and quality of life levels between women and men emerged. According to the regression analysis, a better quality of life in women was predicted by a greater partner's capabilities in identifying and describing emotion as well as by a better partner's quality of life, whereas for men, a better quality of life was predicted by their spouse's higher levels of quality of life. This study highlights the protective role that couples can play in the perception of the negative impact that infertility can have on their partner's quality of life. Further investigations are needed for the development of specific therapeutic interventions for the promotion of the couples' wellbeing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".