Quality of life and psychosexual functioning of infertile women and men based on their specific diagnosis
Authors:
Jana Daňková Kučerová 1,2
; Kateřina Klapilová 3
; Andrea Rákosová Kagánková 1; Pavel Otevřel 4
; Jan Štelcl 4; Milan Kudela 2,5
; Lenka Martinec Nováková 6
Authors place of work:
Reprofi t International s. r. o., Ostrava
1; Lékařská fakulta, UP v Olomouci
2; Centrum pro sexuální zdraví a intervence, NUDZ, Klecany
3; Reprofi t International s. r. o., Brno
4; Porodnicko-gynekologická klinika LF UP a FN Olomouc
5; Katedra psychologie a věd o životě, Fakulta humanitních studií UK, Praha
6
Published in the journal:
Ceska Gynekol 2024; 89(4): 282-292
Category:
Original Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg2024282
Summary
Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of a specific diagnosis of infertile women and men on their life quality and psychosexual functioning based on internationally validated questionnaires. Materials and methods: A total of 853 couples seeking treatment for infertility completed the gender-specific batteries comprised of Fertility Quality of Life tool (FertiQoL), Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) in women, and Brief Sexual Function Inventory (BSFI) in men. Women were followed in the group of primary and secondary infertility and then with specific diagnoses – polycystic ovary syndrome, tubal factor, endometriosis, and idiopathic sterility. Men’s categories reflected spermiogram results, i.e., normozoospermia, merged categories of milder disorders of a spermiogram (teratozoospermia, asthenozoospermia, oligozoospermia, and oligoasthenoteratospermia), oligoasthenoteratospermia (OAT) gravis, azoospermia, and when the man was not examined. Results: When evaluating the quality of life in women, we found statistically significant differences between primary and secondary sterility. Primary infertile women scored worse especially in the social area. Worse assessment appeared also in mind-body (area evaluating affliction of the body). Emotional and relational domains included similar results in primary and secondary infertile women. With a specific diagnosis, statistically significant differences were not proved. Using the orientational cut-off score, FertiQoL stated that approximately 10% of women experienced adverse quality of life in relation to fertility. In the domain of sexual functioning, 30% of women demonstrated clinically significant dysfunctions. In men, respondents in the normozoospermic and non-diagnosed categories scored higher than those in the merged category and OAT gravis. Only 2% of men felt their quality of life was poor due to fertility, and clinically significant dysfunctions appeared only in 3% of them. Conclusion: In women, impaired fertility-related quality of life and psychosexual functioning are significantly linked to primary sterility, where specifically the social domain is affected. The impact of a specific diagnosis appears to be minimal. We found high levels of sexual dysfunctions in women. In men, we follow the link of evaluated quality of life in connection with their results of the spermiogram. With spermiogram defects, both areas of functioning can be affected.
Keywords:
diagnosis – infertility – Quality of life – sexual functioning – women and men
Zdroje
1. Řežábek K. Asistovaná reprodukce. 3. aktua- lizované a doplněné vydání. Praha: Maxdorf 2018.
2. Chow KM, Cheung MC, Cheung IK. Psychosocial interventions for infertile couples: a critical review. J Clin Nurs 2016; 25 (15–16): 2101–2113. doi: 10.1111/jocn.13361.
3. ÚZIS ČR, NRAR 2020. Asistovaná reprodukce v roce 2020, NRAR 2022. 2022 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //www.uzis.cz/res/f/008420/asistreprodukce2020.pdf.
4. Gameiro S, Boivin J, Peronace L et al. Why do patiens discontinue fertility treatment? A systematic review of reasons and predictors of discontinuation in fertility treatment. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18 (6): 652–669. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms031.
5. Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Heijnen EM et al. Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (9): 2050–2055. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den219.
6. Boivin J, Takefman J, Braverman A. The fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) tool: development and general psychometric properties. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (8): 2084–2091. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der171.
7. Boivin J, Takefman J, Braverman A. The Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) tool: development and general psychometric properties. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (2): 409.e3–415.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.046.
8. Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multi dimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther 2000; 26 (2): 191–208. doi: 10.1080/009262300278597.
9. O‘Leary MP, Fowler FJ, Lenderking WR et al. A brief male sexual fiction inventory for urology. Urology 1995; 46 (5): 697–706. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295 (99) 80304-5.
10. Řezáčová J et al. Reprodukční medicína, Současné možnosti v asistované reprodukci. Praha: Mladá Fronta 2019: 62–87.
11. Raque-Bogdan TL, Hoffman MA. The relationship among infertility, self-compassion, and well-being for women with primary or secondary infertility. Psychol Women Q 2015; 39 (4): 484–496. doi: 10.1177/0361684315576208.
12. Gardner DK, Simón C et al. Handbook of in vitro fertilization. 4th ed. Florida, Boca Ration (US): CRC Press 2017.
13. Woods BM, Bray LA, Campbell S et al. A review of the psychometric properties and implications for the use of the fertility quality of life tool. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2023; 21 (1): 45. doi: 10.1186/s12955-023-02125-x.
14. Zurlo MC, Cattaneo Della Volta MF, Vallone F. Predictors of quality of life and psychological health in infertile couples: the moderating role of duration of infertility. Qual Life Res 2018; 27 (4): 945–954. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1781-4.
15. Facchin F, Somigliana E, Busnelli A et al. Infertility-related distress and female sexual fiction during assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2019; 34 (6): 1065–1073. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez046.
16. Wiegel M, Meston C, Rosen R. The female sexual function index (FSFI): cross-validation and development of clinical cut-off scores. J Sex MaritalTher 2005; 31 (1): 1–20. doi: 10.1080/00926230590475206.
17. Dahl AA, Bremnes R, Dahl O et al. Is the sexual fiction compromised in long-term testicular cancer survivors? Eur Urol 2007; 52 (5): 1438–1447. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.046.
18. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th ed. London: Sage 2018: 403.
19. Rosenthal R. Meta-analytical procedures for social research. London: Sage 1991: 19.
20. Ferguson CJ. An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers. Prof Psychol Res Pr 2009; 40 (5): 532–538. doi: 10.1037/a0015808.
21. Donarelli Z, Lo Coco G, Gullo S et al. The Fertility Quality of Life Questionnaire (FertiQoL) Relational subscale: psychometric properties and discriminant validity across gender. Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (9): 2061–2071. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew168.
22. Sexty RE, Hamadneh J, Rösner S et al. Cross-cultural comparison of fertility specific quality of life in German, Hungarian and Jordanian couples attending a fertility center. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016; 14: 27. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0429-3.
23. Hekmatzadeh SF, Bazarganipour F, Hosseini N et al. Psychometrics properties of the Iranian version of fertility quality of life tool: a cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Biomed 2018; 16 (3): 191–198.
24. Suleimenova M, Lokshin V, Glushkova N et al. Quality-of-life assessment of women undergoing in vitro fertilization in Kazakhstan. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19 (20): 13568. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192013568.
25. Millheiser LS, Helmer AE, Quintero RB et al. Is infertility a risk factor for female sexual dysfunction? A case-control study. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (6): 2022–2025. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.01.037.
26. Gabr AA, Omran EF, Abdallah AA et al. Prevalence of sexual dysfunction in infertile versus fertile couples. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 217: 38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.08.025.
27. Santoro N, Eisenberg E, Trussell JC et al. Reproductive Medicine Network Investigators. Fertility-related quality of life from two RCT cohorts with infertility: unexplained infertility and polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (10): 2268–2279. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew175.
28. Aliasghari F, Mirghafourvand M, Charandabi SM et al. The predictors of quality of life in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Int J Nurs Pract 2017; 23 (3). doi: 10.1111/ijn.12526.
29. Naumova I, Castelo-Blanco C, Kasterina I et al. Quality of life in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a comparative study. Reprod Sci 2021; 28 (7): 1901–1909. doi: 10.1007/s43032-020-00394-1.
30. Wu MH, Su PF, Chu WY et al. Quality of life among infertile women with endometritis undergoing IVF treatment and thein pregnancy outcomes. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2021; 42 (1): 57–66. doi: 10.1080/0167482X.2020.1758659.
31. Bourdel N, Alves J, Pickering G et al. Systematic review of endometriosis pain assessment: how to choose a scale? Hum Reprod Update 2015; 21 (1): 136–152. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmu046.
32. Mojahed BS, Ghajarzadeh M, Khammar R et al. Depression, sexual function and sexual quality of life in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and healthy subjects. J Ovarian Res 2023; 16 (1): 105. doi: 10.1186/s13 048-023-01171-9.
33. Zhao S, Wang J, Xie Q et al. Is polycystic ovary syndrome associated with risk of female sexual dysfunction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38 (6): 979–989. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.11.030.
34. Rossi V, Galizia R, Tripodi F et al. Endometriosis and sexual functioning: how much do cognitive and psycho-emotional factors matter? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19 (9): 5319. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095319.
35. Asazawa K, Jitsuzaki M, Mori A et al. Quality-of-life predictors for men undergoing infertility treatment in Japan. Jpn J Nurs Sci 2019; 16 (3): 329–341. doi: 10.1111/jjns.12248.
36. Biggs SN, Halliday J, Hammarberg K. Psychological consequences of a diagnosis of infertility in men: a systematic analysis. Asian J Androl 2023; 26 (1): 10–19. doi: 10.4103/aja202334.
37. Lotti F, Corona G, Castellini G et al. Semen quality impairment is associated with sexual dysfunction according to its severity. Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (12): 2668–2680. doi: 10.1093/humrep/ dew246.
38. Rooney KL, Domar AD. The relationship between stress and infertility. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2018; 20 (1): 41–47. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2018.20.1/klrooney.
39. Boivin J, Harrison C, Mathur R et al. Patient experiences of fertility clinic closure during the COVID-19 pandemic: appraisals, coping and emotions. Hum Reprod 2020; 35 (11): 2556–2566.
Štítky
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Czech Gynaecology
2024 Číslo 4
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Movements of the pelvic bones of expectant mothers during vaginal delivery
- Preoperative discrimination between uterine myomas and sarcomas
- Incidence of stress urinary incontinence after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
- DNA hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes TWIST1, GATA4, MUS81 and NTRK1 in endometrial hyperplasia