| Literature DB >> 29707927 |
Behnaz Navid1, Maryam Mohammadi2, Saman Maroufizadeh1, Payam Amini1, Zahra Shirin1, Reza Omani-Saman3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many infertile couples experience psychological distress and suffer from impaired quality of life. Generally, when couples are dealing with uncontrolled events such as infertility, it is important to manage it well and to use the suitable coping style; so this can represent an example of attribution style. The purpose of this study is to investigate the quality of life, relationship beliefs and attribution style in infertile couples.Entities:
Keywords: Assisted Reproduction Technique; Attribution Style; Infertility; Quality of Life; Relationship Beliefs
Year: 2018 PMID: 29707927 PMCID: PMC5936608 DOI: 10.22074/ijfs.2018.5221
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Fertil Steril ISSN: 2008-0778
Demographic characteristics of the infertile couples
| Male Mean ± SD or n (%) | Female Mean ± SD or n (%) | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33.30 ± 5.13 | 28.94 ± 5.26 | <0.001 | ||
| 0.017 | ||||
| 33 (66) | 33 (66) | |||
| 17 (34) | 13 (34) | |||
| 49 (49) | ||||
| 8 (8) | ||||
| 7 (7) | ||||
| 36 (36) | ||||
| 4.7 ± 3.84 | ||||
| 6.8 ± 3.89 | ||||
SF-12, RBI and ASQ subscales between couples
| Male Mean ± SD | Female Mean ± SD | P value* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 38.02 ± 5.12 | 34.64 ± 5.45 | 0.019* | ||
| 19.90 ± 4.19 | 18.74 ± 4.60 | 0.152 | ||
| 21.90 ± 3.89 | 24.16 ± 5.28 | 0.008 | ||
| 18.44 ± 6.24 | 21.90 ± 6.09 | 0.001 | ||
| 22.68 ± 7.79 | 25.48 ± 6.61 | 0.035 | ||
| 17.48 ± 7.55 | 20.44 ± 5.24 | 0.010 | ||
| 100.40 ± 21.94 | 110.72 ± 20.31 | 0.002 | ||
| 4.18 ± 1.15 | 3.79 ± 1.06 | 0.448 | ||
| 4.75 ± 1.17 | 5.08 ± 1.01 | 0.702 | ||
| 3.81 ± 0.81 | 3.89 ± 0.82 | 0.179 | ||
| 4.78 ± 0.99 | 4.87 ± 1.04 | 0.408 | ||
| 3.82 ± 1.26 | 4.04 ± 0.89 | 0.200 | ||
| 4.58 ± 1.34 | 4.79 ± 1.07 | 0.573 | ||
| 11.81 ± 1.92 | 11.72 ± 1.72 | 0.244 | ||
| 14.12 ± 2.98 | 14.75 ± 2.60 | 0.263 | ||
RBI; Relationship Belief Inventory, ASQ: Attribution Style Questionnaire, SF-12: 12-Item Short Form Survey, and *; Paired t test.
The results of hierarchical multiple linear regressions, including factors related to the quality of life
| Quality of life | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | Beta | SE | B | |
| Step 1: | ||||
| Sex (female vs. male) | -3.098 | 7.986 | -0.282 | 0.024 |
| Education (educated vs. under diploma/diploma) | 1.260 | 1.225 | 1.225 | 0.307 |
| Duration of marriage | -0.101 | 0.303 | -0.071 | 0.739 |
| Duration of infertility | 0.146 | 0.305 | 0.101 | 0.633 |
| Age | -0.133 | 0.152 | -0.135 | 0.385 |
| Disagreement is destructive | 0.254 | 0.110 | 0.257 | 0.023 |
| Mindreading is expected | 0.121 | 0.129 | 0.102 | 0.349 |
| Partners cannot change | 0.048 | 0.130 | 0.041 | 0.714 |
| Sexual perfectionism | 0.055 | 0.133 | 0.044 | 0.680 |
| Sexes are different | 0.055 | 0.113 | 0.054 | 0.631 |
| Negative internal | 0.058 | 0.538 | 0.012 | 0.914 |
| Positive internal | -0.351 | 1.532 | -0.070 | 0.819 |
| Negative stability | 0.125 | 0.751 | 0.018 | 0.869 |
| Positive stability | -0.797 | 1.049 | -0.147 | 0.450 |
| Negative public | -0.402 | 0.627 | -0.079 | 0.523 |
| Positive public | 0.539 | 0.458 | 0.118 | 0.242 |
| Cynical attribution | -0.165 | 0.307 | -0.054 | 0.593 |
The relationship of SF-12 with RBI and ASQ subscales
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. SF-12 | 1 | 0.380* | 0.210* | 0.119 | 0.101 | 0.206* | 0.386** | ||
| 2. Disagreement is destructive | 0.380** | 1 | 0.319** | -0.012 | 0.191 | 0.202* | 0.663** | ||
| 3. Mindreading is expected | 0.210** | 0.319** | 1 | -0.151 | 0.082 | 0.097 | 0.490** | ||
| 4. Partners cannot change | 0.119 | -0.012 | -0.151 | 1 | 0.195 | 0.257* | 0.456** | ||
| 5. Sexual perfectionism | 0.101 | 0.191 | 0.082 | 0.195 | 1 | -0.027 | 0.487** | ||
| 6. Sexes are different | 0.206* | 0.202* | 0.097 | 0.257* | -0.027 | 1 | 0.600** | ||
| 7. Total | 0.386** | 0.663** | 0.490** | 0.456** | 0.487* | 0.600** | 1 | ||
| 1. SF-12 | 1 | 0.061 | 0.213* | -0.166 | 0.110 | -0.029 | 0.118 | -0.054 | 0.175 |
| 2. Negative internal | 0.061 | 1 | 0.100 | 0.144 | -0.127 | -0.031 | -0.135 | 0.661 | -0.065 |
| 3. Positive internal | 0.213* | 0.100 | 1 | -0.226 | 0.561** | 0.265* | 0.644** | 0.120 | 0.876** |
| 4. Negative stability | -0.166 | 0.144 | -0.226* | 1 | -0.017 | 0.010 | -0.099 | 0.540 | -0.138 |
| 5. Positive stability | 0.110 | -0.127 | 0.561** | -0.017 | 1 | 0.125 | 0.466** | -0.009 | 0.786** |
| 6. Negative public | -0.029 | -0.031 | 0.265* | 0.010 | 0.128 | 1 | 0.526 | 0.586** | 0.378* |
| 7. Positive public | 0.118 | -0.135 | 0.644** | -0.099 | 0.466** | 0.526** | 1 | 0.189 | 0.855** |
| 8. Cynical attribution | -0.054 | 0.661** | 0.120 | 0.540** | -0.009 | 0.586** | 0.189 | 1 | 0.126 |
| 9. Optimistically attribution | 0.175 | -0.065 | 0.876** | -0.138 | 0.786** | 0.378** | 0.855** | 0.126 | 1 |
RBI; Relationship Belief Inventory, ASQ; Attribution Style Questionnaire, SF-12; 12-Item Short Form Survey, r; Pearson correlation coefficient, *; P<0.05, and **; P<0.001