The Etiology of Infertility Affects Fertility Quality of Life of Males Undergoing Fertility Workup and Treatment

The quality of life of men experiencing infertility: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Men experiencing infertility encounter numerous problems at the individual, family, and social levels as well as quality of life (QOL). This study was designed to investigate the QOL of men experiencing infertility through a systematic review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review was conducted without any time limitation (Retrieval date: July 1, 2023) in international databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The search was performed by two reviewers separately using keywords such as QOL, infertility, and men. Studies were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the articles were evaluated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. In the initial search, 308 studies were reviewed, and after removing duplicates and checking the title and abstract, the full text of 87 studies were evaluated.

RESULTS

Finally, 24 studies were included in the final review based on the research objectives. Based on the results, men's QOL scores in different studies varied from 55.15 ± 13.52 to 91.45 ± 13.66%. Of the total reviewed articles, the lowest and highest scores were related to mental health problems and physical dimensions, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The reported findings vary across various studies conducted in different countries. Analysis of the factors affecting these differences is necessary, and it is recommended to design a standard tool for assessing the quality of life of infertile men. Given the importance of the QOL in men experiencing infertility, it is crucial to consider it in the health system. Moreover, a plan should be designed, implemented and evaluated according to each country's contex to improve the quality of life of infertile men.

Characteristics of patients seeking fertility care in a low-income setting

OBJECTIVE

Patients face challenges accessing fertility treatment due to barriers such as financial burdens, delayed referral to Reproductive Endocrinologists (REI), low medical literacy, language barriers and numerous other health disparities. Medicaid in New York offers coverage for office visits, blood tests, hysterosalpingograms (HSGs), and pelvic ultrasounds for infertility. The aim of this study is to delineate the characteristics of this underserved population and determine their ability to complete the initial fertility workup.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all patients seeking fertility care at a single resident/fellow REI clinic in New York from September 2020 - January 2022.

RESULTS

During the study period, 87 patients (avg age = 35.2y) sought care at the resident/fellow clinic over 126 appointments. The majority of patients had Medicaid insurance and most primary languages spoken included English (70.1%), Spanish (21.8%), and Bengali (3.4%). Documented Race was comprised of mostly Other (46%), African American (21.8%), Asian (17.2%), and White (11.5%). The majority of patients completed a lab workup (70-80%). Fewer patients underwent a scheduled HSG (59.8%) and patients' partners completed a semen analysis (SA) (27.6%). Overall, there was a significant difference in the ability to complete the initial infertility workup (lab tests vs. HSG vs. SA) across all groups regardless of age, insurance type, primary language spoken, race and ethnicity (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Completing the fertility workup, particularly the male partner workup and imaging studies, can present challenges for underserved patients with infertility. Understanding which patient characteristics and societal factors restrict access to fertility care requires further investigation to improve access to fertility care in underserved communities.

Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility†

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after 'standard' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial draft, the final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations-of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak-10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker's fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker's fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

Psychological consequences of a diagnosis of infertility in men: a systematic analysis

Almost half of infertility cases involve male infertility. Understanding the consequence of a diagnosis of male infertility, as a sole or partial contributor to the couples' infertility, to the mental health of men is required to ensure clinical care meets their psychological needs. The aim of this systematic analysis was to synthesize the evidence regarding whether men diagnosed with male factor infertility experience greater psychological distress than (1) men described as fertile and (2) men in couples with other infertility diagnoses. Online databases were searched using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) headings and keywords relating to male infertility and psychological distress. The search yielded 1016 unique publications, of which 23 were included: 8 case-control, 14 prospective cohort, and 1 data linkage studies. Seven aspects of psychological distress were identified depression, anxiety, self-esteem, quality of life, fertility-related stress, general psychological stress or well-being, and psychiatric conditions. Case-control studies reported that men with male factor infertility have more symptoms of depression, anxiety and general psychological distress, worse quality of some aspects of life, and lower self-esteem than controls. When men with male factor infertility were compared to men in couples with other causes of infertility, there were few differences in the assessed aspects of psychological distress. Despite methodological limitations within the studies, this systematic analysis suggests that the experience of infertility, irrespective of its cause, negatively affects men's mental health and demonstrates the need for assisted reproduction technology (ART) providers to consider men undergoing assisted reproduction as individuals with their own unique support needs.

Implementation of a web-based partnership support program for improving the quality of life of male patients undergoing infertility treatment: a pilot feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to implement and evaluate a Web-based partnership support program to enhance the QoL of male patients undergoing infertility treatment. We conducted a pilot study involving 41 infertile couples from September to October of 2021. We used a quasi-experimental design (pre-test and post-test with comparison) involving purposive sampling. A subgroup analysis was conducted to determine which demographics of the participants would benefit from the program.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants (mean age 37.3 years; duration of infertility treatment 14.5 months) were included in the final analysis (follow-up rate 82.9%). Although there was no significant increase in the participants' QoL under the Web-based partnership support program, the assisted reproductive technology group (P = 0.03), the no medical history group (P = 0.032), and the with experience of changing hospital group (P = 0.027) showed a significant increase in the relational subscale scores of the QoL before and after the program. The majority of the participants (n = 29; 85.3%) expressed satisfaction with the support program. Participation in the Web-based partnership support program may improve the QoL of some men undergoing infertility treatment. Trial registration Retrospectively registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network on 26 January 2023 (ID: UMIN0000 000050153).

A review of the psychometric properties and implications for the use of the fertility quality of life tool

OBJECTIVES

To analyze and synthesize the reported psychometric properties of the Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) instrument and describe its implications for use in practice and research in men and women with infertility.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify all articles using the FertiQoL tool. PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from September 2006 through May 2022. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported psychometric data on the original FertiQoL tool using a sample population of individuals with infertility. Sample size, country of origin, and psychometric data were documented for each study.

RESULTS

The initial search revealed 153 articles that had utilized the FertiQoL. Following abstract, title, and full-text screenings, 53 articles reported psychometric data and met criteria for inclusion. The FertiQoL is a sound measurement with satisfactory reliability and validity. Studies indicated adequate reliability in the overall scale ([Formula: see text]), as well as the core Emotional, Mind/Body, Social, and Relational scales ([Formula: see text]) and two optional Tolerability and Environment fertility treatment subscales ([Formula: see text]). Although the Relational subscale exhibited slightly lower reliability in several studies, the internal consistency for the measurement as a whole was satisfactory. Results also indicate adequate: 1) face and content validity with extensive professional and patient feedback during development; 2) convergent validity with general quality of life, depression, and anxiety measurements; and 3) structural validity using both confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses.

CONCLUSION

The FertiQoL tool is the most commonly used instrument to measure the impact of fertility issues on quality of life in men and women with infertility. Understanding the impact of infertility on quality of life provides valuable insight into the areas of infertility-related care that need to be prioritized, such as mental health or relational stressors. While the instrument has been used in different patient populations with infertility and available in multiple translations, it is necessary to understand the updated psychometric properties and the implications for its use. This review shows that the FertiQoL is reliable and valid for cross-cultural use among individuals with various etiologies of infertility.

Dual mediating effects of social support and fertility stress on mindfulness and fertility quality of life in infertile men: A case-control study

Background

Infertility is one of the three major public health problems in the world, bringing immense physical and psychological damage to men and affecting the quality of men’s fertility life. Thus, the purpose of this study was to analyze the status of social support, fertility stress, mindfulness, and fertility quality of life in infertile men, and to explore the dual mediating effects of social support and fertility stress on mindfulness and fertility quality.

Methods

A case–control group study was conducted, with 246 men in the case group and 149 in the control group. The Social Support Scale, Fertility Stress Scale, Mindfulness Scale, and Fertility Quality of Life Scale were used to establish a structural equation model using Mplus 8.3 to explore social support and fertility stress. Pathway relationships were drawn between mindfulness and fertility quality of life in infertile men.

Results

There were significant differences between infertile and healthy men in each dimension of the core module of fertility quality of life, in the total score of the treatment module, in the total score of social support, in subjective and objective support, and in the total score of fertility stress, social pressure, sexual pressure, marital relationship, and childless pressure (p &lt; 0.05 in each case). Further, the fertility quality of life in infertile men was positively correlated with mindfulness and social support, and negatively correlated with fertility stress (p &lt; 0.05); mindfulness could directly affect the core and treatment modules of fertility life quality, and indirectly affect the core of fertility life quality through social support (mediation effect accounted for 19.0%), while the treatment module (mediation effect accounted for 13.7%), and the core module indirectly affected fertility life quality through fertility stress (mediation effect accounted for 16.8%).

Conclusion

The fertility quality of life of infertile men is not optimistic. Mindfulness-related interventions and programs can improve their fertility quality of life.

Male Attitudes towards Infertility: Results from a Global Questionnaire

PURPOSE

In general, men are less likely to seek health care than women. Infertility is a global disease that afflicts approximately 15% of reproductive age couples and the male contributes to 40% of the diagnosable cause. Remarkably, no large or multi-national population data exist regarding men's perceptions about their infertility. The purpose of this study was to advance our knowledge about the infertile male's social experience regarding: (1) how they feel about their infertility, (2) what motivated them to seek health care, (3) how likely are they to talk with others about their infertility, (4) their awareness of male infertility support groups, and (5) what their primary source for information is regarding male infertility? Based on the results from this study, these simple questions now have clearer definition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An Institutional Review Board-approved, male-directed, anonymous questionnaire translated into 20 languages was made globally available through the Fertility Europe website (https://fertilityeurope.eu). Males (n=1,171) age 20-49 years were invited to complete the online survey after informed consent.

RESULTS

Most respondents were European (86%). Of European men, <15.8% were self-motivated to seek medical help. Further, their physician was not the primary source of information regarding their infertility. While most men (59%) viewed their infertility positively, a large majority were not very likely (73%) to talk about it. Most respondents indicated a lack of awareness or absence of male infertility support groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first multi-national population data revealing men's feelings about their infertility, what motivates them to seek help and their awareness of resources for peer support and information. These findings also serve to highlight significant gaps that exist in the provision of male reproductive health care and in supportive resources for men suffering from infertility. We offer recommendations on how to address the problem(s).

Global Research Trends on Infertility and Psychology From the Past Two Decades: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the global scientific output of research on infertility and psychology; explore the current status and trends in this field through the cooperation of authors, countries, and institutions; shed light on the direction of clinical infertility research in the future, and provide inspiration for targeted diagnosis and treatment of infertility.

Methods

Research publications on infertility and psychology from the past two decades were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Bibliometric analyses were performed using VOSviewer software and the bibliometrix R package. Network maps were generated to evaluate the collaborations between different authors, countries, institutions, and keywords.

Results

A total of 151 articles related to the study of infertility and psychology were identified. We observed a gradual increase in the number of publications from 2001 to 2021, and the trend has been relatively stable in the past eight years. Human Reproduction (England), as the leading journal publishing the most papers (29 articles), was cited in the most journals (1208 times). Boivin J was the most prolific author (16 articles), with the largest number of citations (890 times) and the highest h-index (14) during the past decades. Boivin J was also the leader with the highest publication frequency and more active cooperation with other top authors. The United Kingdom (34 papers) and Cardiff University (25 articles) contributed the most publications and were the leading contributors in this field. Active cooperation between countries and between institutions was observed, and analyses of articles and references were also shown. The main hot topics included matters related to women (39 times), in-vitro salt (31 times), infertility (30 times), couples (25 times), and impact (24 times).

Conclusion

Our study results provide a comprehensive overview of the development of scientific literature, allowing relevant authors and research teams to recognize the current research status in this field. At the same time, infertility and psychology may soon become hotspots and should be closely monitored.

Does male fertility-related quality of life differ when undergoing evaluation by reproductive urologist versus reproductive endocrinologist?

The female infertility experience is well-described, but the male experience is less explored. We sought to understand if fertility motivations and quality of life differ for males undergoing fertility evaluation by a reproductive urologist (RU) versus a reproductive endocrinologist (RE). A cross-sectional study of 201 males undergoing fertility evaluation at an academic centre, by either a RU or RE, over a 2-year period, was performed. A survey was administered, with demographic, medical, and fertility motivations questions, and the validated Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) questionnaire. Responses were compared by provider type using descriptive statistics, chi-square, and t-test. Most men (91.1%) pursued evaluation because of a mutual desire for children. RE evaluated males were older, earned higher incomes, and were more likely to pursue IVF versus those RU evaluated (p < 0.05). Men evaluated by RUs had lower FertiQoL scores, (p < 0.05), which correlated with having known male factor infertility (p < 0.05). Nearly all (96.2%) men evaluated by RUs indicated this was helpful for understanding their infertility. Our findings provide new insight into the male fertility evaluation experience. Despite the lower QoL seen by men seeing a RU, nearly all men reported that a RU evaluation was helpful for understanding their infertility experience.

Assessment of Quality of Life in Men Treated for Infertility in Poland

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of life (QoL) of men treated for infertility in Poland. This cross-sectional study was conducted using the Abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire (WHOQoL-BREF), Fertility Quality of Life tool (FertiQoL) and an author-constructed questionnaire. The study included 1200 men treated for infertility without the use of assisted reproductive technology (non-ART), intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in vitro fertilization (IVF). The control group consisted of 100 healthy men with confirmed fertility. The quality of life assessed by the WHOQoL-BREF questionnaire was significantly lower in study groups in the Environmental domain, compared to the control group (p = 0.009). Statistically significant differences were found in the case of FertiQoL subscales: Emotional, Mind-Body, Relational, and Treatment Environment, depending on applied treatment. Men whose partners were treated without the use of ART assessed their QoL significantly more negatively than those treated with IUI. Reproductive problems and type of their treatment influenced the quality of life of the affected men. Non-ART treatment, rural place of residence, and increased BMI were associated with lower QoL.

Family-building and parenting considerations for people with cystic fibrosis

As people with cystic fibrosis (CF) live longer and healthier lives, increasing numbers are considering the full range of reproductive options for their futures, including parenthood, pregnancy, or pregnancy prevention. As the face of CF changes, the CF care model must adapt to meet the reproductive health needs of both parents and nonparents with CF. This article summarizes the reproductive goals and family-building concerns faced by people with CF, including fertility, pregnancy, and alternative paths to parenthood, the impact of parenthood on mental and physical health, and important future research.