MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390854033 · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17628-x

Treatment suspension due to the coronavirus pandemic and mental health of infertile patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

2024· review· en· W4390854033 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elnaz Iranifard, Atefeh Yas, Elahe Mansouri Ghezelhesari, Ali Taghipour, Malihe Mahmoudinia, Robab Latifnejad Roudsari

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMashhad University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyMeta-analysisAnxietyMental healthEpidemiologyPublic healthDepression (economics)BiostatisticsInfertilityPsychiatryInternal medicinePregnancyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Access to fertility treatments is considered a reproductive right, but because of the quarantine due to the coronavirus pandemic most infertility treatments were suspended, which might affect the psychological and emotional health of infertile patients. Therefore, this study was conducted to review the mental health of infertile patients facing treatment suspension due to the coronavirus pandemic. METHODS: This study was conducted based on the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guideline. The Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane library databases were searched by two independent researchers, without time limitation until 31 December 2022. All observational studies regarding the mental health of infertile patients facing treatment suspension including anxiety, depression, and stress were included in the study. Qualitative studies, editorials, brief communications, commentaries, conference papers, guidelines, and studies with no full text were excluded. Quality assessment was carried out using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale by two researchers, independently. The random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of mental health problems. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to confirm the sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Out of 681 studies, 21 studies with 5901 infertile patients were systematically reviewed, from which 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results of all pooled studies showed that the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress in female patients was 48.4% (95% CI 34.8-62.3), 42% (95% CI 26.7-59.4), and 55% (95% CI 45.4-65), respectively. Additionally, 64.4% (95% CI 50.7-76.1) of patients wished to resume their treatments despite the coronavirus pandemic. CONCLUSION: Treatment suspension due to the coronavirus pandemic negatively affected the mental health of infertile patients. It is important to maintain the continuity of fertility care, with special attention paid to mental health of infertile patients, through all the possible measures even during a public health crisis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.038
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.554
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.043 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207