Depression and state anxiety scores during assisted reproductive treatment are associated with outcome: a meta-analysis
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Abstract
This meta-analysis investigated whether state anxiety and depression scores during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment and changes in state anxiety and depression scores between baseline and during ART treatment are associated with treatment outcomes. PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for studies to include in the meta-analysis. Meta-analytic data were analysed using random effects models to estimate standardised mean differences. 11 studies (2202 patients) were included. Women who achieved a pregnancy had significantly lower depression scores during treatment than women who did not become pregnant -0.302 (95% CI: -0.551 - -0.054, z = -2.387, p = 0.017; I2= 77.142%, p = 0.001). State anxiety scores were also lower in women who became pregnant -0.335 (95% CI: -0.582 - -0.087: z=-2.649, p=0.008; I2 =81.339%, p = 0.001). However, changes in state anxiety (d=-0.056; 95% CI: -0.195 - 0.082, z = -0.794; I2= 0.00%) and depression scores (d=-0.106; 95% CI: -0.296 - 0.085, z = -1.088; I2= 0.00%) from baseline to treatment were not associated with ART outcomes. Clinics should aim to promote better psychosocial care for patients to help them manage the psychological and physical demands ART treatment, giving realistic expectations.Citation
Purewal, S., Chapman, S., van den Akker, O. B. A. 'Depression and state anxiety scores during assisted reproductive treatment are associated with outcome: a meta-analysis', Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 36(6) pp. 646-657. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.03.010Journal
Reproductive BioMedicine OnlineType
Journal articleLanguage
enDescription
This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Reproductive Healthcare Ltd in Reproductive Biomedicine Online on 26/03/2018, available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.03.010 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Sponsors
This research was funded by the British Academy small grant award ( SG100026 ).ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.03.010
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/