Advertisement

BMC Public Health

, 19:1548 | Cite as

The association between stressful life events and perceived quality of life among women attending infertility treatments: the moderating role of coping strategies and perceived couple’s dyadic adjustment

  • Maria Clelia ZurloEmail author
  • Maria Francesca Cattaneo Della Volta
  • Federica Vallone
Open Access
Research article
  • 209 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Health behavior, health promotion and society

Abstract

Background

Research highlighted that Stressful Life Events have high incidence among infertile patients and significant impact on physical and medical parameters related to reproductive functions, but their potential role among factors influencing the infertile patients’ perception of fertility-related Quality of Life (QoL) has not been explored. The present study aims to investigate the associations of Stressful Life Events (Stressful events in the family of origin, In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties, Health problems in childhood) with perceived fertility-related QoL in women attending infertility treatments, examining the potential moderating role of adopted coping strategies and perceived couple’s dyadic adjustment.

Methods

A questionnaire consisting of Socio-demographics and Infertility-related characteristics, Stress-inducing events in the couples’ lives Questionnaire (FLS), Coping Orientations to Problem Experienced (COPE), Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), and Core and Treatment subscales of Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) was administered to 266 women attending infertility treatments. A descriptive correlational design with cross-sectional comparison was used. Results Logistic Regression Analyses after adjusting for socio-demographic and infertility-related characteristics revealed that women who reported Stressful events in the family of origin and In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties were more likely to report lower levels of perceived Core QoL, while women who reported Health problems in childhood were more likely to report lower levels of perceived Treatment QoL. Couple’s dyadic adjustment and specific coping strategies were significantly associated with perceived Core and Treatment QoL and they also significantly moderated the associations between stressful life events and perceived QoL.

Conclusions

Data provided original evidence on the strong association between stressful life events and perceived fertility-related QoL also highlighting individual and couples’ resources to define counselling interventions with women attending infertility treatments.

Keywords

Infertility Stressful life events Quality of life Coping strategies Couple’s dyadic adjustment 

Abbreviations

COPE

Coping Orientations to Problem Experienced

DAS

Dyadic Adjustment Scale

FertiQoL

Fertility-related Quality of Life

FLS

Stress-inducing events in the couples’ lives Questionnaire

ICSI

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection

IUI

Intrauterine insemination

IVF

In Vitro Fertilization

QoL

Quality of Life

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Science

Background

Infertility is clinically described as a disease of the reproductive system defined by the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse [1], affecting 9–15% of couples worldwide [2]. Research widely recognized that infertility is a distressing experience [3, 4, 5] that may significantly affect perceived levels of quality of life (QoL) [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] and psychological health [12, 13, 14, 15], and implies attempts of re-definition by searching for causes and meanings to re-establish personal control and satisfactory (QoL) [16, 17, 18].

QoL is a multidimensional construct defined as the perception of individuals of their position in the context of their culture and values system and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns, which comprises psychological, physical, social and environmental perceived functioning and health [19]. In the same perspective, the construct of the fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) has been developed with the aim of specifically address both dimensions of perceived emotional, physical, relational and social QoL (Core FertiQoL), and dimensions of accessibility and perceived quality of services, quality of interactions with the medical staff, physical and psychological consequences of the medical treatments (Treatment FertiQoL) [20, 21, 22]. Therefore, research identified several individual factors (i.e., gender [8, 23], age [23, 24, 25] and coping strategies [26, 27]), infertility-related factors (i.e., type of diagnosis, type of treatment and duration of infertility [6, 27, 28]), and relational factors (i.e., quality of marital relationship [29, 30, 31]), influencing perceived levels of psychological health and QoL.

Research also highlighted that stressful life events have to be considered as factors widely influencing physical and psychological health parameters [32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37] and perceived levels of QoL [38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. Therefore, considering infertility research, several studies showed that the presence of stressful events in the family of origin (e.g., divorce, financial problems, deaths, maltreatment), in family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties (e.g., unwanted child, stillborn children, abortion), and health problems in childhood (e.g., injuries, illness, hospitalization) is frequently reported in the biographical background of infertile patients [43, 44, 45], revealing a significant impact on relevant physical and medical parameters related to the reproductive functions, such as menstrual cycle regularity [46], semen quality [47], and pregnancy outcome after In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) [48, 49, 50].

Nevertheless, according to previous research on couple counseling and therapy with infertile patients [17], the couple’s biographical background may also have a significant impact on the perception and definition of the current infertility experience at individual, relational and social level. Indeed, previous research highlighted that the adaptation process to an aversive event consists of appraisals of both primary control (i.e., appraisal of possibilities to modify the situation to reduce its negative impact) and secondary control (i.e., appraisals of possibilities to modify the appraisal of circumstances to promote adaptation to them). In particular, secondary control appraisal may include different strategies aiming to enhance adjustment, such as interpretative control (i.e., attempts to give meaning on the basis of previous experiences); cognitive control (i.e., attempts to think and redefine the situation), predictive control (i.e., attempts to predict future events to avoid disappointment and pain previously experienced), vicarious control (i.e., attempts to control experience ascribing it to an authoritative other) and retrospective control (i.e., attempts to identify protective factors in a past negative experience with the aim of consider it avoidable in the future) [16]. Consequently, on the basis of the research reported above, previous stressful life events may be hypothesised as influencing the quality and the effectiveness of control strategies adopted by infertile patients and, therefore, their perceived levels of QoL.

Aims

Although previous studies suggest that stressful life events have a significant impact on essential parameters for the reproductive success, to date, to the best of our knowledge, little is known concerning the associations between the presence of stressful life events and perceived levels of QoL in infertile patients.

Therefore, the present study aims at analysing the potential association of Stressful Life Events (i.e., Stressful events in the family of origin, In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties, Health problems in childhood) with perceived Core and Treatment QoL in women attending infertility treatments. Furthermore, considering the significant role exerted by individual resources (i.e., coping strategies) [26, 27, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55], and by relational resources (i.e., perceived couple’s dyadic adjustment) [3, 4, 5, 29, 31] invested in dealing with infertility, the present study aims at testing the potential moderating role of adopted coping strategies and of perceived couple’s dyadic adjustment in the relationship between experienced Stressful Life Events and perceived levels of Fertility-related Core and Treatment QoL.

Methods

Study design and participants

The present cross-sectional study was conducted in collaboration with 9 Italian Centres of Assisted Reproduction of Naples, Udine, and Brescia between March 2016 and January 2017. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Psychological Research of the University of Naples Federico II and research was performed in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Prior to data collection, the Heads of all Departments of the University were informed about the purpose of the study and data collection procedures and their consent was acquired. Chairmen were asked to give the authorization for administering a questionnaire in their centres and, after obtaining their adhesion to the project, women undergoing infertility treatments were asked to participate in the study before their medical appointment. Participants were female members of couples that had been diagnosed with infertility (Male Factor; Female Factor; Combined Male and Female Factor or Unexplained), with all aetiologies of infertility. Overall, 300 women were asked by their physician to participate in the study, and 266 out of 300 women (response rate = 88.67%) completed a questionnaire lasting 20–30 min (one session) in a quiet room setting in the medical centre. One of the authors was present to answer any queries raised by participants.

Measures

A questionnaire composed of six sections was submitted. All variables and measures investigated are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1

Variables considered in the questionnaire and description of measures

Dimensions

Measures

Variables

Socio-demographic Characteristics

Single item Questions (2 items)

Age in years Educational Level (Senior School/ College)

Infertility Related Characteristics

Single Item Questions (3 items)

Type of Diagnosis (Male, Female, Combined, Unexplained) Type of Treatment (IVF, ICSI, IUI) Duration of Infertility in years

Stressful Life Events

Stress-inducing events in the couples’ lives Questionnaire (FLS) [43] (3 items)

Stressful events in the family of origin (Absence/Presence) In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties (Absence/Presence) Health problems in childhood (Absence/Presence)

Coping Strategies

Coping Orientations to Problem Experienced- New Italian version (COPE-NVI) [56, 57] (60 items, 5-point scale)

Problem Solving (Cronbach α = 0.83; cut-off = 32.0)

Positive Attitude (Cronbach α = 0.76; cut-off = 30.9)

Social Support (Cronbach α = 0.91; cut-off = 27.7)

Avoidance (Cronbach α = 0.70; cut-off = 23.5)

Turning to religion (Cronbach α = 0.85; cut-off = 22.7)

Dyadic Adjustment

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) [58, 59] (32 items, 6-point scale)

Total Score (satisfaction, cohesion, consensus, affectional expression) (Cronbach α = 0.93; cut-off = 115.0)

Fertility Quality of Life

Fertility Quality of Life Questionnaire (FertiQoL) [20, 21, 22] (36 items, 5-point scale)

Core FertiQoL (Cronbach α = 0.92; cut-off = 54.6)

Treatment FertiQoL (Cronbach α = 0.92; cut-off = 60.4)

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS, Version 21). Firstly, a number of descriptive analyses of socio-demographic and infertility-related characteristics of study participants were conducted. All the study variables were dichotomised. Age and Duration of Infertility were dichotomised referring to the means of our sample. Educational Level (Senior School education/College education), Type of Diagnosis (Male Factor, Female Factor, Combined Factor and Unexplained Factor), Type of Treatment (In vitro fertilization, IVF; Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, ICSI; Intrauterine insemination, IUI), and Stressful Life Events were coded as absence/presence. Coping Strategies, Total Dyadic Adjustment, and FertiQoL subscales scores were dichotomised referring to the cut-off scores of the validation studies reported in Table 1. Therefore, descriptive analyses of frequencies and percentages of the presence of Stressful Life Events, recourse to Coping Strategies, and perception of Total Dyadic Adjustment and Core and Treatment FertiQoL were carried out. Afterward, Logistic Regression Analyses (method: enter, first indicator contrast; entry criterion: p < 0.05; removal criterion: p > 0.01, and Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-fit statistic fixed at p > 0.05) were separately run to determine main associations of Stressful Life Events, Coping Strategies, and Total Dyadic Adjustment with perceived Core and Treatment FertiQoL. Finally, a further set of Logistic Regression Analyses was carried out to test the potential significant interactions between Stressful Life Events and both adopted Coping Strategies and perceived Total Dyadic Adjustment in predicting perceived levels of Core and Treatment FertiQoL. Relevant Socio-demographic and Infertility-related characteristics (Age, Educational Level, Type of Diagnosis, Type of Treatment and Duration of Infertility) were included in the Logistic Regression Analyses as control variables in order to consider their potential influence on the model parameters. All the different hypotheses have been tested carrying out separated Logistic Regression Analyses.

Results

Table 2 provides data on Socio-demographic and Infertility-related characteristics. All the 266 women had a diagnosis of primary infertility.
Table 2

Socio-demographic and infertility-related characteristics of study participants (N = 266)

Characteristics

Value

Range

Age [Mean (SD)]

34.2 (3.83)

[22–49]

  ≤ 34 years [n (%)]

146 (54.9%)

 

 > 34 years [n (%)]

120 (45.1%)

 

Educational Level [n (%)]

 Senior School

171 (64.3%)

 

 College

95 (35.7%)

 

Type of Diagnosis [n (%)]

 Male Factor

89 (33.5%)

 

 Female Factor

74 (27.8%)

 

 Combined Factor

61 (22.9%)

 

 Unexplained

42 (15.8%)

 

Type of Treatment [n (%)]

 IVF

150 (56.4%)

 

 ICSI

85 (32.0%)

 

 IUI

31 (11.6%)

 

Duration of infertility [Mean (SD)]

3.0 (2.38)

[1–17]

  ≤ 3 years [n (%)]

199 (74.8%)

 

  > 3 years [n (%)]

67 (25.2%)

 

As regards the presence of Stressful life events, Stressful events in the family of origin (N = 130; 48.9%) was the most frequently reported, followed by In Family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties (N = 128; 48.1%) and Health problems in childhood (N = 102; 38.3%). As regards perceived levels of Core and Treatment QoL, 57 (21.4%) women reported low levels of Core FertiQoL and 80 (30.1%) low levels of Treatment FertiQoL.

As regards the adopted Coping Strategies, the recourse to Social Support was the most frequently reported (N = 189; 71.0%), followed by Positive Attitude (N = 171; 64.3%), Problem Solving (N = 164; 61.6%), Avoidance (N = 160; 60.1%), and Turning to Religion (N = 89; 33.4%). Finally, as regards perceived couple’s dyadic adjustment, 97 women (36.5%) reported high levels of Total Dyadic Adjustment.

Table 3 displays significant associations emerged from Logistic Regression Analyses. With respect to main effects, findings highlighted that the presence of Stressful events in the family of origin and In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties was significantly associated with lower perceived levels of Core FertiQoL, while the presence of Health problems in childhood was significantly associated with lower perceived levels of Treatment FertiQoL. Moreover, with respect to main associations of adopted coping strategies with perceived QoL, findings highlighted that high recourse to both active coping strategies (i.e., Positive Attitude and Social Support) and Avoidance/distancing coping strategies was significantly associated with high perceived levels of Core and Treatment FertiQoL, while high recourse to Problem Solving coping strategy was significantly associated with high levels of perceived Treatment FertiQoL. Finally, with respect to main associations of perceived couple’s dyadic adjustment with perceived QoL, data revealed that high perceived levels of Total Dyadic Adjustment were significantly associated with high perceived levels of both Core and Treatment FertiQoL.
Table 3

Regressions: stressful life events, coping strategies and couple’s dyadic adjustment against FertiQoL subscales

 

Core FertiQoL

Treatment FertiQoL

OR

95% CI

OR

95% CI

Stressful events in the family of origin

0.45*

0.32–0.98

0.18

0.52–3.25

In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties

0.66**

0.37–0.92

0.37

0.24–2.84

Health problems in childhood

0.80

0.59–4.54

0.44*

0.23–0.92

Problem Solving

0.76

0.51–3.43

3.21**

1.98–6.43

Positive Attitude

2.98*

1.76–5.83

3.54*

2.11–8.49

Avoidance

2.57*

1.84–6.33

3.03*

2.11–7.42

Social Support

3.25**

2.24–7.12

2.98*

1.65–6.83

Das Tot

2.56*

1.61–6.89

3.53*

2.80–7.52

Stressful events in the family of origin x Positive Attitude

2.95*

1.52–7.40

2.53

0.83–3.85

Stressful events in the family of origin x Das Tot

2.31*

1.54–7.11

1.87

0.91–3.54

In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties x Avoidance

0.43*

0.21–0.89

0.39**

0.12–0.81

In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties x Social Support

3.96**

2.68–9.32

3.24*

2.13–7.32

In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties x Das Tot

3.15*

1.35–8.31

2.11

0.90–3.24

Health problems in childhood x Problem Solving

3.76 **

2.61–8.21

3.09*

2.34–7.42

Health problems in childhood x Das Tot

2.67

0.89–3.76

3.51**

2.25–8.17

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. Controlled by Age, Educational Level, Type of Diagnosis, Type of Treatment, and Duration of Infertility

With respect to interaction analyses, data revealed that negative associations between the presence of Stressful events in the family of origin and perceived levels of Core FertiQoL were significantly moderated by the recourse to Positive Attitude coping strategy, and that negative associations between the presence of Health problems in childhood and perceived levels of Treatment FertiQoL were significantly moderated by the recourse to Problem Solving coping strategy. Moreover, negative associations between the presence of In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties and perceived Core FertiQoL were significantly buffered by the recourse to Social Support coping strategy, and, conversely, significantly increased by the recourse to Avoidance/Distancing coping strategies. Finally, the negative associations between the presence of all types of Stressful Life Events and perceived levels of both Core and Treatment FertiQoL were found significantly moderated by high perceived levels of couple’s dyadic adjustment.

Discussion

According to previous studies [43, 44, 45], data confirmed a significant incidence of all types of Stressful Life Events among the women attending infertility treatments considered, highlighting that 48.9% of women reported Stressful events in the family of origin, 48.1% reported In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties, and 38.3% Health problems in childhood. Moreover, concerning perceived levels of QoL, data also revealed the impact of infertility experience and medical treatments showing that 21.4% of women reported low levels of Core FertiQoL and 30.1% low levels of Treatment FertiQoL.

Data also supported the hypothesis of a significant association between the presence of Stressful Life Events and low perceived levels of fertility-related Core and Treatment QoL. In particular, it emerged that women reporting both Stressful events in the family of origin and In family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties were more likely to perceive significantly lower levels of Core FertiQoL (i.e., lower levels of perceived relational, emotional, physical and social QoL) when dealing with infertility experience. Moreover, it emerged that women reporting Health problems in childhood were more likely to perceive lower levels of Treatment FertiQoL, inducing to emphasise the role of early experiences of illness and hospitalisation on the infertile patients’ perception of medical treatments. In this perspective, findings suggested that there is a need to increase consideration of the potential impact of Stressful Life Events on the infertility experience and, therefore, the organisation of infertility counseling interventions and therapy before, during and after treatments, should also carefully address the exploration of individual, relational and transgenerational dimensions associated to Stressful Life Events to identify factors influencing individual and couple risk and resources, meanings of wish for a child and motivation for infertility treatment.

Nonetheless, data also highlighted the positive moderating role exerted by specific individual and relational resources, such as the recourse to active coping strategies (i.e., Positive Attitude, Problem Solving, and Social Support) and the perception of a satisfactory couple’s dyadic adjustment. In particular, in infertile women experiencing the presence of stressful events in the family of origin, the recourse to Positive Attitude (i.e., patients’ capability to preserve an active and optimistic attitude) was found having a significant role in enhancing perceived Core QoL. Moreover, in women reporting experiences of health problems in childhood, the adoption of coping strategies centred on Problem Solving (i.e., patients’ capability to actively redefine, understand and face medical aspects of infertility diagnosis and treatments) was found having a positive and significant influence on perceived levels of Treatment QoL. Furthermore, in the presence of more specific in family pre-existing pregnancy difficulties, the recourse to coping strategies centred on Social Support (i.e., patients’ capability to social sharing and emotional disclosure) was found having a significant influence on perceived levels of Core and Treatment QoL. Conversely, the recourse to Avoidance/distancing coping strategies was not adequate to face the psychological impact of the repetition of previous familiar pregnancy difficulties in patients’ current experience, resulting in significantly lower levels of Core and Treatment QoL.

Finally, findings emphasised the role of perceiving a satisfactory and gratifying couple’s relationship, able to fulfil the needs for consensus, cohesion, security, and emotional involvement to counteract the negative impact of all previous stressful and adverse events considered on perceived levels of QoL, by sharing negative feelings, worry and tension related to infertility and medical treatments.

In this perspective, the present study shared the aim of ESHRE guidelines [60] to promote an optimal management of psychosocial care, providing evidence-based information to be applied by professionals from the field of infertility and medically assisted reproduction to enhance tailored and customized interventions by including the evaluation of presence, types, and severity of previous Stressful Life Events as well as of individual and relational resources in terms of coping profiles and couple’s adjustment.

However, despite these findings, some limitations should be mentioned. Firstly, the present research has a cross-sectional design, and therefore no cause - effect relationships between predictors and outcomes investigated can be suggested. Secondly, the measures used were self-report, increasing the risk of social desirability bias. Thirdly, only the moderating role of coping strategies and perceived dyadic adjustment were considered in the present study, while further research could be developed addressing the potential impact of other variables and other personality characteristics (e.g., personality factors, defence mechanisms, attributional styles, control strategies) which may play a role in predicting QoL in infertile patients. Furthermore, future research could also focus on the potential impact of both stressful life events and perceived fertility-related QoL on relevant medical parameters and pregnancy outcomes. Finally, further research should be developed to specifically focus on the impact of Stressful Life Events on fertility-related QoL among male infertile patients, which could give useful information for psychological interventions for both individuals and couples.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study provided new evidence on the associations between the experience of Stressful Life Events and perceived levels of fertility-related QoL in women undergoing infertility treatments, identifying specific risk and protective factors related to their biographical background to be considered for developing targeted counseling interventions to support and enhance optimal adaptation processes to infertility treatments.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to all women who participated in this study.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Psychological Research of the University of Naples Federico II and research was performed in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Verbal and written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to participating in the study.

Authors’ contributions

The following co-authors contributed to de manuscript: MCZ: study conception and design. MFCDV and FV: Acquisition of data. MCZ, MFCDV and FV: Analysis and interpretation of data. MCZ, MFCDV, and FV: Drafting of manuscript. MCZ, MFCDV, and FV: Critical revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, Sullivan E, van der Poel S. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary on ART terminology. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1520–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(6):1506–12.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cserepes RE, Kollár J, Sápy T, Wischmann T, Bugán A. Effects of gender roles, child wish motives, subjective well-being, and marital adjustment on infertility-related stress: a preliminary study with a Hungarian sample of involuntary childless men and women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(4):925–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004-013-2835-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ying LY, Wu LH, Loke AY. Gender differences in experiences with and adjustments to infertility: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52(10):1640–1652. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.05.004.
  5. 5.
    Peterson BD, Newton CR, Rosen KH. Examining congruence between partners' perceived infertility-related stress and its relationship to marital adjustment and depression in infertile couples. Fam Process. 2003;42(1):59–70.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2003.00059.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huppelschoten AG, van Dongen AJCM, Verhaak CM, Smeenk JMJ, Kremer JAM, Nelen WLDM. Differences in quality of life and emotional status between infertile women and their partners. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2168–76.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karaca N, Karabulut A, Ozkan S, Aktun H, Orengul F, Yilmaz R, Ates S, Batmaz G. Effect of IVF failure on quality of life and emotional status in infertile couples. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;206:158–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.09.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ragni G, Mosconi P, Baldini MP, Somigliana E, Vegetti W, Caliari I, Nicolosi AE. Health-related quality of life and need for IVF in 1000 Italian infertile couples. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(5):1286–91.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh788.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Verhaak CM, Aarts JWM, Boivin J, Kremer JAM, Van Empel IWH. O-038 measuring quality of life in infertility using the Fertiqol questionnaire. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(20100600):i16–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Valsangkar S, Bodhare T, Bele S, Sai S. An evaluation of the effect of infertility on marital, sexual satisfaction indices and health-related quality of life in women. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2011;4(2):80–5.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.86088.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mousavi SA, Masoumi SZ, Keramat A, Pooralajal J, Shobeiri F. Assessment of questionnaires measuring quality of life in infertile couples: a systematic review. J Reprod Infert. 2013;14(3):110.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cousineau TM, Domar AD. Psychological impact of infertility. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(2):293–308.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.12.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luk BHK, Loke AY. The impact of infertility on the psychological well-being, marital relationships, sexual relationships, and quality of life of couples: a systematic review. J Sex Marital Ther. 2015;41(6):610–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.958789.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peterson BD, Sejbaek CS, Pirritano M, Schmidt L. Are severe depressive symptoms associated with infertility- related distress in individuals and their partners? Hum Reprod. 2014;29(1):76–82.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zurlo MC, Cattaneo Della Volta MF, Vallone F. Infertility-related stress and psychological health outcomes in infertile couples undergoing medical treatments: testing a multi-dimensional model. J Clin Psychol Med S. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-019-09653-z.
  16. 16.
    Tennen H, Affleck G, Mendola R. Causal explanations for infertility: their relationship to control appraisals and psychological adjustment. In: Stanton AL, Dunkel-Schetter C, editors. Infertility. Perspectives from stress and coping research. New York, London: Plenum press; 1991. p. 109–131.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wischmann T, Stammer H, Gerhard I, Verres R. Couple counseling and therapy for the unfulfilled desire for a child–the two-step approach of the “Heidelberg infertility consultation service”. In: Strauss B, editor. Involuntary childlessness: psychological assessment, counseling, and therapy. Seattle, Toronto, Bern, Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers; 2002. p. 127–49.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van den Broeck U, Emery M, Wischmann T, Thorn P. Counselling in infertility: individual, couple and group interventions. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(3):422–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.10.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The WHOQOL Group. The development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Orley J, Kuyken W, editors. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boivin J, Takefman J, Braverman A. Development and preliminary validation of the fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) tool. Hum Reprod. 2011a;26(8):2084–91.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der171.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boivin J, Takefman J, Braverman A. The fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) tool: development and general psychometric properties. Fertil Steril. 2011b;96(2):409–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boivin J, Takefman J, Braverman A. FertiQoL International, Fertility Quality of Life Questionnaire [Questionario sulla qualità della vita prendendo in considerazione la fertilità]; 2008. Available from: http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/fertiqol/files/2015/02/fertiqol-Italian.pdf [Accessed 27th June 2018].
  23. 23.
    Chachamovich JR, Chachamovich E, Ezer H, Fleck MP, Knauth D, Passos EP. Investigating quality of life and health-related quality of life in infertility: a systematic review. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2010;31(2):101–10.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0167482X.2010.481337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aarts JWM, Van Empel IWH, Boivin J, Nelen WL, Kremer JAM, Verhaak CM. Relationship between quality of life and distress in infertility: a validation study of the Dutch FertiQoL. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(5):1112–8.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chachamovich JR, Chachamovich E, Zachia S, Knauth D, Passos EP. What variables predict generic and health-related quality of life in a sample of Brazilian women experiencing infertility? Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):1946–52.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem080.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abbey A, Andrews FM, Halman LJ. Psychosocial predictors of life quality: how are they affected by infertility, gender, and parenthood? J Fam Issues. 1994;15(2):253–71.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X94015002006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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):945–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1781-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karabulut A, Özkan S, Oğuz N. Predictors of fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) in infertile women: analysis of confounding factors. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):193–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.06.029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Monga M, Alexandrescu B, Katz SE, Stein M, Ganiats T. Impact of infertility on quality of life, marital adjustment, and sexual function. Urology. 2004;63(1):126–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lau JT, Wang Q, Cheng Y, Kim JH, Yang X, Yi TH. Infertility-related perceptions and responses and their associations with quality of life among rural Chinese infertile couples. J Sex Marital Ther. 2008;34(3):248–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230701866117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Onat G, Beji NK. Effects of infertility on gender differences in marital relationship and quality of life: a case control study of Turkish couples. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165(2):243–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chartier MJ, Walker JR, Naimark B. Separate and cumulative effects of adverse childhood experiences in predicting adult health and health care utilization. Child Abuse Negl. 2010;34(6):454–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Venter M, Demyttenaere K, Bruffaerts R. The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and mental health in adulthood. A systematic literature review. Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2013;55(4):259–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Grandin LD, Alloy LB, Abramson LY. Childhood stressful life events and bipolar spectrum disorders. J Soc Clinl Psychol. 2007;26(4):460–78.  https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2007.26.4.460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heim C, Newport DJ, Wagner D, Wilcox MM, Miller AH, Nemeroff CB. The role of early adverse experience and adulthood stress in the prediction of neuroendocrine stress reactivity in women: a multiple regression analysis. Depress Anxiety. 2002;15(3):117–25.  https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wickrama KA, Lee TK, O'Neal CW. Stressful life experiences in adolescence and cardiometabolic risk factors in young adulthood. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56(4):456–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.12.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sokratous S, Merkouris A, Middleton N, Karanikola M. The association between stressful life events and depressive symptoms among Cypriot university students: a cross-sectional descriptive correlational study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1121.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Corso PS, Edwards VJ, Fang X, Mercy JA. Health-related quality of life among adults who experienced maltreatment during childhood. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(6):1094–100.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.119826.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Edwards VJ, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Dube SR. Adverse childhood experiences and health-related quality of life as an adult. In: Kendall-Tackett KA, editor. Application and practice in health psychology. Health consequences of abuse in the family: A clinical guide for evidence-based practice. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2004. p. 81–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/10674-005.
  40. 40.
    Salinas-Miranda AA, Salemi JL, King LM, Baldwin JA, Austin DA, Scarborough K, Spooner KK, Zoorobrj Salihu HM. Adverse childhood experiences and health-related quality of life in adulthood: revelations from a community needs assessment. Health Qual Life. 2015;13(1):123.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0323-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sherbourne CD, Meredith LS, Rogers W, Ware JE. Social support and stressful life events: age differences in their effects on health-related quality of life among the chronically ill. Qual Life Res. 1992;1(4):235–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435632.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pocnet C, Antonietti JP, Strippoli MPF, Glaus J, Preisig M, Rossier J. Individuals’ quality of life linked to major life events, perceived social support, and personality traits. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(11):2897–908.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1296-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wischmann, T. Heidelberger Kinderwunsch-Sprechstunde: eine Studie zu psychosozialen Aspekten ungewollter Kinderlosigkeit [Heidelberg fertility consultation service: a study of psychosocial aspect of involuntary childlessness]. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang; 1998.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wischmann T, Stammer H, Scherg H, Gerhard I, Verres R. Psychosocial characteristics of infertile couples: a study by the Heidelberg fertility consultation service. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(8):1753–61.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.8.1753.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wischmann T, Scherg H, Strowitski T, Verres R. Psychosocial characteristics of women and men attending infertility counselling. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(2):378–85.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jacobs MB, Boynton-Jarrett RD, Harville EW. Adverse childhood event experiences, fertility difficulties and menstrual cycle characteristics. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2015;36(2):46–57.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0167482X.2015.1026892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gollenberg AL, Liu F, Brazil C, Drobnis EZ, Guzick D. Overstreet, Redmon JB, Sparks a, Wang C, swan SH. Semen quality in fertile men in relation to psychosocial stress. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1104–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ebbesen SMS, Zachariae R, Mehlsen MY, Thomsen D, Højgaard A, Ottosen L, Petersen T, Ingerslev HJ. Stressful life events are associated with a poor in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome: a prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2008;24(9):2173–82.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nakamura K, Sheps S, Arck PC. Stress and reproductive failure: past notions, present insights and future directions. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25(2–3):47–62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9206-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pottinger AM, Nelson K, McKenzie C. Stressful events and coping with infertility: factors determining pregnancy outcome among IVF couples in Jamaica. J Reprod Infant Psyc. 2016;34(1):3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2015.1093613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Berghuis JP, Stanton AL. Adjustment to a dyadic stressor: a longitudinal study of coping and depressive symptoms in infertile couples over an insemination attempt. J Consult Clinl Psych. 2002;70(2):433–8.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.2.433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jordan C, Revenson TA. Gender differences in coping with infertility: a meta-analysis. J Behav Med. 1999;22(4):341–58.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018774019232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kraaij V, Garnefski N, Schroevers MJ. Coping, goal adjustment, and positive and negative affect in definitive infertility. J Health Psychol. 2009;14(1):18–26.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105308097939.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Peterson BD, Newton CR, Rosen KH, Skaggs GE. Gender differences in how men and women who are referred for IVF cope with infertility stress. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2443–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Peterson BD, Pirritano M, Christensen U, Schmidt L. The impact of partner coping in couples experiencing infertility. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(5):1128–37.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK. Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;56(2):267–83.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sica C, Magni C, Ghisi M, Altoè G, Sighinolfi C, Chiri LR, Franceschini S. Coping orientation problems experienced - Nuova versione italiana (COPE-NVI): Uno strumento per la misura degli stili di coping [coping orientation to the problems experienced-new Italian version (COPE-NVI)]. Psicoterapia Cognitiva e Comportamentale. 2008;14(1):27–53.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gentili P, Contrearas L, Cassaniti M, D'Arista F. La dyadic adjustment scale. Una misura dell'adattamento di coppia [the dyadic adjustment scale. A measurement of dyadic adjustment]. Minerva Psichiatr. 2002;43(2):107–16.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. J Marriage Fam. 1976;38(1):15–28.  https://doi.org/10.2307/350547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gameiro S, Boivin J, Dancet E, de Klerk C, Emery M, Lewis-Jones C, Thorn P, Van den Broeck U, Venetis C, Verhaak CM, Wischmann T, Vermeulen N. ESHRE guideline: routine psychosocial care in infertility and medically assisted reproduction—a guide for fertility staff. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(11):2476–85.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political SciencesUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of HumanitiesUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations