Perceived financial burden is indirectly linked to sexual well-being via quality of life among couples seeking medically assisted reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Medically assisted reproduction is a difficult treatment process for couples both financially and sexually. Yet, these two domains have not been examined together among couples seeking treatment, leaving couples and practitioners without guidance on how to address these domains together. Methods In line with Couples and Finance Theory, we tested the hypothesis that perceived financial burden and couple income would predict quality of life during medically assisted reproduction, which would then predict four domains of sexual well-being (i.e., sexual satisfaction, desire, distress, and frequency). We also examined if the results differed by treatment status—that is, between partners who were receiving treatment and those who were not. Cross-sectional data from 120 couples who had undergone medically assisted reproduction in the past six months were analyzed via structural equation modeling through an actor-partner interdependence mediation model. Results An individual’s greater perceived financial burden predicted their own lower quality of life during medically assisted reproduction, which in turn predicted their lower sexual satisfaction, desire and distress, as well as their partner’s lower sexual satisfaction. Household income did not indirectly predict any sexual well-being domains, and results regarding treatment status were inconclusive. Discussion Clinicians can discuss with couples how perceived financial strain of medically assisted reproduction affects their quality of life and what ramifications that may have for their sexual well-being.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".