MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401647604 · doi:10.1186/s40814-024-01535-y

Pilot trial of a new self-directed psychological intervention for infertility-related distress

2024· article· en· W4401647604 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Megan M L Poulter, Ashley A. Balsom, Jennifer L. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersCanada Research ChairsSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsInfertilityIntervention (counseling)DistressPsychological distressPsychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryMental healthPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Now affecting one in six couples in Canada, infertility is defined as a lack of conception after 12 or more months of regular, unprotected heterosexual intercourse. Infertility is associated with immense psychological burden, particularly for individuals assigned female at birth. Yet existing psychological interventions are not specialized to this population and have been shown to be only marginally effective at relieving distress related to infertility. Thus, a new online self-directed psychological intervention was co-created with a panel of women experiencing infertility, and ultimately consisted of six 10-min video modules addressing the cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal aspects of infertility-related distress. METHODS: In the current study, 21 women experiencing reduced quality of life related to infertility were recruited to participate in a one-arm pre-post pilot testing the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the program. Participant adherence and retention were monitored, and participants rated the credibility of the program and the helpfulness of each module as well as provided feedback on the content and format of the program. Pre-to-post changes in fertility quality of life, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, and relationship satisfaction were examined. RESULTS: The program modules were highly rated by participants, with average helpfulness ratings ranging from 7.5 to 8.2/10. Two participants became pregnant and therefore stopped prematurely, 79% of the remaining participants completed all six modules, and participants reported completing 52.8 (SD = 82.0) min of homework per week. Participants perceived the intervention as highly credible and generally approved of the format, length, and speed; however, 68% of participants had recommendations for additional content to be included in the intervention. While relationship satisfaction did not change significantly over time, large pre-to-post improvements in fertility quality of life, depression, and anxiety were observed (p < .001; Cohen's ds = 0.9-1.3). CONCLUSIONS: This self-directed intervention was well received and has the potential to be highly effective in reducing infertility-related distress, informing future development and optimization. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05103982.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207