↓ Skip to main content

Psychological and educational interventions for subfertile men and women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychological and educational interventions for subfertile men and women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011034.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jolijn Verkuijlen, Christianne Verhaak, Willianne LDM Nelen, Jack Wilkinson, Cindy Farquhar

Abstract

Approximately one-fifth of all subfertile couples seeking fertility treatment show clinically relevant levels of anxiety, depression, or distress. Psychological and educational interventions are frequently offered to subfertile couples, but their effectiveness, both in improving mental health and pregnancy rates, is unclear. To assess the effectiveness of psychological and educational interventions for subfertile couples on psychological and fertility treatment outcomes. We searched (from inception to 2 April 2015) the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 2, 2015), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, DARE, Web of Science, OpenGrey, LILACS, PubMed, and ongoing trials registers. We handsearched reference lists and contacted experts in the field. We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised trials, and cross-over trials (first phase) evaluating the effectiveness of psychological and educational interventions on psychological and fertility treatment outcomes in subfertile couples. Two review authors independently assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Our primary outcomes were psychological measures (anxiety and depression) and fertility rates (live birth or ongoing pregnancy). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.As we did not consider the included studies to be sufficiently similar to permit meaningful pooling, we summarised the results of the individual studies by presenting the median and interquartile range (IQR) of effects as well as the minimum and maximum values. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes. We included 39 studies involving 4925 participants undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Studies were heterogeneous with respect to a number of factors, including nature and duration of interventions, participants, and comparator groups. As a result, we judged that pooling results would not result in a clinically meaningful estimate of a treatment effect. There were substantial methodological weaknesses in the studies, all of which were judged to be at high risk of bias for one or more quality assessment domains. There was concern about attrition bias (24 studies), performance bias for psychological outcomes (27 studies) and fertility outcomes (18 studies), and detection bias for psychological outcomes (26 studies). We therefore considered study-specific estimates of intervention effects to be unreliable. Thirty-three studies reported the outcome mental health. Only two studies reported the outcome live birth, and both of these had substantial attrition. One study reported ongoing pregnancy, again with substantial attrition. We have combined live birth and ongoing pregnancy in one outcome. Psychological outcomesStudies utilised a variety of measures of anxiety and depression. In all cases a low score denoted benefit from the intervention.SMDs for anxiety were as follows: psychological interventions versus attentional control or usual care: median (IQR) = -0.30 (-0.84 to 0.00), minimum value -5.13; maximum value 0.84, 17 RCTs, 2042 participants; educational interventions versus attentional control or usual care: median = 0.03, minimum value -0.38; maximum value 0.23, 4 RCTs, 330 participants.SMDs for depression were as follows: psychological interventions versus attentional control or usual care: median (IQR) = -0.45 (-0.68 to -0.08), minimum value -3.01; maximum value 1.23, 12 RCTs, 1160 participants; educational interventions versus attentional control or usual care: median = -0.33, minimum value -0.46; maximum value 0.17, 3 RCTs, 304 participants. Fertility outcomesWhen psychological interventions were compared with attentional control or usual care, ORs for live birth or ongoing pregnancy ranged from minimum value 1.13 to maximum value 10.05. No studies of educational interventions reported this outcome. The effects of psychological and educational interventions on mental health including distress, and live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates is uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. Existing trials of psychological and educational interventions for subfertility were generally poorly designed and executed, resulting in very serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency in study findings. There is a need for studies employing appropriate methodological techniques to investigate the benefits of these treatments for this population. In particular, attentional control groups should be employed, that is groups receiving a treatment that mimics the amount of time and attention received by the treatment group but is not thought to have a specific effect upon the participants, in order to distinguish between therapeutic and non-specific effects of interventions. Where attrition cannot be minimised, appropriate statistical techniques for handling drop-out must be applied. Failure to address these issues in study design has resulted in studies that do not provide a valid basis for answering questions about the effectiveness of these interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 159 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 25%
Student > Bachelor 29 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Researcher 12 7%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 21 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 33%
Psychology 35 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 25 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2019.
All research outputs
#773,958
of 14,033,278 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,388
of 10,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,770
of 263,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#67
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,033,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.