MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381619644 · doi:10.1093/humrep/dead093.036

O-036 Are male infertility patients and male partners to infertility patients impacted differently by fertility challenges?

2023· article· en· W4381619644 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacky Boivin, Mathias Markert, Eva Roitmann, Alice D. Domar

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfertilityMale infertilityDistressFertilityMedicineMental healthFamily medicineUnexplained infertilityDemographyGynecologyPsychiatryPopulationClinical psychologyPregnancyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Study question How do male infertility patients and male partners to infertility patients differ on the impact of diagnosis on their daily lives, relationships and mental health? Summary answer Significantly more male patients than male partners agreed that diagnosis impacted their activities of daily living, partner relationships and mental health. What is known already Globally, male factor infertility is causal (solely or with other factors) in approximately 50% of infertility cases1. The male patient perspective on infertility remains under-researched as is that of the male partner to the infertile patient. A recent James Lind Alliance priority setting study, including health professionals, patients and health care providers, identified psychological aspects of male infertility as one of the top 10 research priorities within male infertility2. Previous literature has documented that men with male factor infertility can experience significant mental distress compared to other diagnoses. However, there is a paucity of evidence about other aspects of life. Study design, size, duration This is a secondary analysis of the male subpopulation of the international, online, 30-minute, quantitative ‘1000 dreams’ survey, which collected data from March to May 2019 among 1944 respondents. The male subpopulation consisted of 847 respondents from nine countries (United States [US], United Kingdom [UK], Germany, Spain, Italy, France, China, Australia, and Canada). Male respondents had either been diagnosed with infertility (patients) or had a partner who had received a diagnosis of infertility (partners). Participants/materials, setting, methods Infertile patients (n = 351) and partners (n = 496) were at different stages of the treatment journey (diagnosis, treatment). Average age at time of questionnaire completion was 36.33 years (SD = 10.06). Survey topics covered impact on mental health, relationships and daily activities. Respondents indicated their extent of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 to 7 (do not agree at all–completely agree). Response categories 5-7 (somewhat to fully agree) were combined. Chi-square comparison tests were used. Main results and the role of chance Significantly more male patients (57%, n = 351) than male partners (40%, n = 496) agreed with some impact of their diagnosis on their activities of daily living (p < 0.001). Of those reporting any impact, male patients were significantly more likely to agree that they withdraw from social engagements than male partners (55% vs 38%, p < 0.001). A significantly greater proportion of male patients agreed that the diagnosis had a negative impact on their work-life balance compared with male partners (58% vs 42%, p < 0.001) and a negative impact on their career progression (51% vs 36%, p < 0.001). Similarly, 60% of male patients and 52% of male partners agreed that there were some impacts on their relationship with their partners (p = 0.03). Of these, more male patients than male partners somewhat or fully agreed that the financial commitment began to put a strain on their partner relationship (54% vs 43%, p < 0.01). Among male patients (n = 351), 62% felt that their diagnosis had an impact on their mental health, and of these, 30% sought professional support services. Among male partners (n = 496) 47% reported an impact of their partners diagnosis on their mental health and of these 23% sought professional support services (all differences were NS). Limitations, reasons for caution This survey is based on an anonymous, self-reported online survey with no opportunities to validate data by health care professionals and respondents were not able to ask clarifying questions. There is a risk that the data is not fully representative of the male patient/partner population. Wider implications of the findings The presence of a male factor diagnosis impacts the emotional experience of infertility on males. It highlights the importance of recognizing that while infertility is a couple diagnosis, men may have varying needs for support depending on whether the source of fertility problems is male. Trial registration number Not applicable

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207