Summary
Purpose
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Keywords
Introduction
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive health: infertility [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [cited 2022 May 9]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/index.htm#:∼:text=What%20is%20 infertility%3F,6%20months%20of%20unprotected%20sex.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive health: infertility [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [cited 2022 May 9]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/index.htm#:∼:text=What%20is%20 infertility%3F,6%20months%20of%20unprotected%20sex.
- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
World Health Organization. Health topics: infertility [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; [cited 2022 May 9]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/infertility#tab=tab_1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive health: infertility [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [cited 2022 May 9]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/index.htm#:∼:text=What%20is%20 infertility%3F,6%20months%20of%20unprotected%20sex.
Methods
Design
Setting and study participants
Ethical considerations
Measures
Type-D personality
Fatigue
Quality of life
General characteristics
Statistical analysis
Results
General characteristics, fatigue, and QoL according to type-D personality
Variables | Categories | Total (n = 149) | Type-D (n = 61) | Non-type-D (n = 88) | t or χ2 or F | p | Range |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M ± SD, n (%) | |||||||
Demographic characteristics | |||||||
Age (year) | Women | 35.61 ± 4.62 | 35.75 ± 4.26 | 35.51 ± 4.88 | .31 | .754 | 25–46 |
<35 | 64 (43.0) | 22 (36.1) | 42 (47.7) | 2.00 | .180 | ||
≥35 | 85 (57.0) | 39 (63.9) | 46 (52.3) | ||||
Husband | 37.57 ± 5.00 | 37.49 ± 4.99 | 37.63 ± 5.04 | −.16 | .874 | 27–55 | |
<35 | 43 (28.9) | 18 (29.5) | 25 (28.4) | .02 | .884 | ||
≥35 | 106 (71.1) | 43 (70.5) | 63 (71.6) | ||||
Religion | Yes | 75 (50.3) | 30 (49.2) | 45 (51.1) | .06 | .868 | |
No | 74 (49.7) | 31 (50.8) | 43 (48.9) | ||||
Occupation | Yes | 95 (63.8) | 41 (43.2) | 54 (56.8) | .53 | .465 | |
No | 54 (36.2) | 20 (37.0) | 34 (63.0) | ||||
Education | ≤High school | 29 (19.5) | 9 (14.8) | 20 (22.7) | 1.46 | .294 | |
≥University | 120 (80.5) | 52 (85.2) | 68 (77.3) | ||||
Monthly income (thousand won) | <3,000 | 45 (30.2) | 18 (29.5) | 27 (30.7) | 2.92 | .231 | |
3,000–4,000 | 49 (32.9) | 16 (26.2) | 33 (37.5) | ||||
≥4,000 | 55 (36.9) | 27 (44.3) | 28 (31.8) | ||||
Fertility-related characteristics | |||||||
Duration of infertility treatment (in months) | 24.24 ± 18.61 | 29.26 ± 21.20 | 20.76 ± 15.78 | −2.66 | .009 | ||
<36 | 115 (77.2) | 42 (68.9) | 73 (83.0) | 4.07 | .044 | ||
≥36 | 34 (22.8) | 19 (31.1) | 15 (17.0) | ||||
Experienced treatment (double choice) | OI (yes) | 88 (59.1) | 40 (65.6) | 48 (54.5) | 1.81 | .178 | |
(no) | 61 (40.9) | 21 (34.4) | 40 (45.5) | ||||
IUI (yes) | 74 (49.7) | 32 (52.5) | 42 (47.7) | .32 | .570 | ||
(no) | 75 (50.3) | 29 (47.5) | 46 (52.3) | ||||
IVF (yes) | 81 (54.4) | 35 (57.4) | 46 (52.3) | .38 | .538 | ||
(no) | 68 (45.6) | 26 (42.6) | 42 (47.7) | ||||
Others (yes) | 16 (10.7) | 5 (8.2) | 11 (12.5) | .70 | .404 | ||
(no) | 133 (89.3) | 56 (91.8) | 77 (87.5) | ||||
Relationship with spouse | Good | 128 (85.9) | 48 (78.7) | 80 (90.9) | 4.44 | .035 | |
Bad | 21 (14.1) | 13 (21.3) | 8 (9.1) | ||||
Fatigue | Total | 3.48 ± 1.24 | 3.97 ± .97 | 3.13 ± 1.29 | 4.52 | <.001 | 1.11–6.11 |
Yes (≥4) | 51 (34.2) | 31 (50.8) | 20 (22.7) | 12.63 | <.001 | ||
No (<4) | 98 (65.8) | 30 (49.2) | 68 (77.3) | ||||
Fertility-related Quality of Life | Total | 58.98 ± 11.99 | 54.46 ± 12.93 | 62.11 ± 10.25 | −3.86 | <.001 | 28.65–88.02 |
Overall physical health | 2.27 ± .71 | 2.21 ± .76 | 2.31 ± .68 | −.79 | .432 | 1–4 | |
QoL Life satisfaction | 2.50 ± .71 | 2.28 ± .66 | 2.66 ± .71 | −3.31 | .001 | 0–4 | |
Core Ferti QoL | 62.86 ± 14.94 | 57.55 ± 16.39 | 66.55 ± 12.69 | −3.61 | <.001 | 21.88–92.71 | |
Emotional | 61.86 ± 18.37 | 56.15 ± 21.06 | 65.81 ± 15.14 | −3.08 | .003 | 12.50–100.0 | |
Mind-body | 61.88 ± 19.19 | 57.04 ± 19.80 | 65.25 ± 18.11 | −2.62 | .010 | 12.67–100.0 | |
Relational | 65.41 ± 17.06 | 59.77 ± 17.49 | 69.32 ± 15.69 | −3.48 | .001 | 20.83–100.0 | |
Social | 62.30 ± 16.65 | 57.24 ± 17.64 | 65.81 ± 15.05 | −3.19 | .002 | 12.50–95.83 | |
Treatment Ferti QoL | 55.09 ± 11.56 | 51.37 ± 11.63 | 57.67 ± 10.85 | −3.39 | .001 | 30.21–85.42 | |
Environment | 51.96 ± 11.96 | 49.45 ± 12.21 | 53.69 ± 11.54 | −2.15 | .033 | 25.00–87.50 | |
Tolerability | 58.22 ± 18.47 | 53.28 ± 18.99 | 61.65 ± 17.40 | −2.78 | .006 | 18.75–100.0 |

QoL according to general characteristics
Variables | Categories | Quality of life | t or F | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
M ± SD | |||||
Women's age (in years) | <35 | 59.37 ± 9.95 | .36 | .721 | |
≥35 | 58.68 ± 13.38 | ||||
Husband's age (in years) | <35 | 58.36 ± 11.64 | −.41 | .523 | |
≥35 | 59.23 ± 12.18 | ||||
Religion | Yes | 57.83 ± 10.34 | −1.17 | .244 | |
No | 60.14 ± 13.43 | ||||
Occupation | Yes | 58.99 ± 12.44 | .01 | .990 | |
No | 58.96 ± 11.28 | ||||
Education | ≤High school | 60.52 ± 12.59 | .77 | .440 | |
≥University | 58.60 ± 11.87 | ||||
Monthly income (thousand won) | <3,000 | 58.60 ± 11.02 | .37 | .690 | |
3,000–4,000 | 60.17 ± 10.92 | ||||
≥4,000 | 58.22 ± 13.69 | ||||
Duration of infertility treatment (month) | <36 | 61.11 ± 10.91 | 4.20 | <.001 | |
≥36 | 51.78 ± 12.84 | ||||
Experienced treatment (double choice) | OI | Yes | 57.64 ± 12.50 | −1.64 | .103 |
No | 60.90 ± 11.04 | ||||
IUI | Yes | 57.24 ± 12.54 | −1.77 | .080 | |
No | 60.69 ± 11.25 | ||||
IVF | Yes | 57.36 ± 13.53 | −1.86 | .065 | |
No | 60.90 ± 9.61 | ||||
Others | Yes | 62.21 ± 11.91 | 1.14 | .255 | |
No | 58.59 ± 11.99 | ||||
Relationship with spouse | Good | 60.10 ± 11.53 | 2.90 | .004 | |
Bad | 52.11 ± 12.73 |
Correlation between variables in infertile women
Variables | Women's age | Husband's age | Fatigue |
---|---|---|---|
r (p) | r (p) | r (p) | |
Husband's age | .69 (<.001) | ||
Fatigue | −.01 (.920) | −.04 (.620) | |
QoL | .04 (.658) | .02 (.806) | −.35 (<.001) |
Factors affecting QoL in infertile women
Variable (constant) | Step 1 | Step 2 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SE | β | t | p | B | SE | β | t | p | |
62.38 | 1.16 | 53.80 | <.001 | 71.19 | 2.59 | 27.45 | <.001 | |||
Duration of infertility treatmenta | −7.49 | 1.98 | −.29 | −3.78 | <.001 | −5.71 | 1.91 | −.22 | −2.99 | .003 |
Relationship with spouseb | −7.42 | 2.64 | −.22 | −2.81 | .006 | −5.77 | 2.53 | −.17 | −2.28 | .024 |
Fatigue | −2.25 | .75 | −.23 | −2.99 | .003 | |||||
Type-D personalityc | −4.30 | 1.90 | −.18 | −2.27 | .025 | |||||
Adjusted R2 | .13 | .22 | ||||||||
Adjusted R2 change | .13 | .09 | ||||||||
F | 11.75 | 11.64 | ||||||||
F change | 11.75 | 10.07 | ||||||||
p | <.001 | <.001 |
Discussion
Conclusion
Funding
Authorship
Conflicts of interest
Data availability statement
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reproductive health: infertility [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [cited 2022 May 9]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/index.htm#:∼:text=What%20is%20 infertility%3F,6%20months%20of%20unprotected%20sex.
- Regional indicators: whether a married woman (ages 15-49) has experienced infertility diagnosis.Statistics Korea, Daejeon2019 ([Internet, cited 2022 May 9]. Available from:)
- Regional indicators: total fertility rate.Statistics Korea, Daejeon2021 ([Internet, cited 2022 May 9]. Available from:)
- Fertility rates (indicator).([Internet, cited 2022 May 9])https://doi.org/10.1787/8272fb01-enDate: 2022
World Health Organization. Health topics: infertility [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; [cited 2022 May 9]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/infertility#tab=tab_1.
- Psychosocial predictors of infertility distress in women.J Korean Soc Matern Child Health. 2019; 23: 136-146https://doi.org/10.21896/jksmch.2019.23.2.136
- The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) in women experiencing infertility: a reliability and validity study.Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2018; 23: 456-459https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2018.02.003
- Coping strategies of women following the diagnosis of infertility in their spouses: a qualitative study.Evid Based Care. 2020; 10: 15-24https://doi.org/10.22038/ebcj.2020.42136.2120
- Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century.Hum Reprod Update. 2015; 21: 411-426https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv016
- Effects of irrational parenthood cognition, post traumatic stress disorder and spousal support on QoL of infertile women.Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2017; 23: 145-153https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2017.23.2.145
- Predictors of QoL and psychological health in infertile couples: moderating role of the duration of infertility.Qual Life Res. 2018; 27: 945-954https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1781-4
- Resilience moderates the relationship between infertility-related stress and fertility QoL in women with infertility: a cross-sectional study.Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019; 17: 38https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1099-8
- Quality of life in women of reproductive age: a comparative study of infertile and fertile women in a Nigerian tertiary center.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 38: 247-251https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1347916
- Comparison of quality of life, sexual satisfaction and marital satisfaction between fertile and infertile couples.Int J Fertil Steril. 2016; 10: 290-296https://doi.org/10.22074/ijfs.2016.5045
- Impact of infertility and infertility treatments on QoL and levels of anxiety and depression in women undergoing in vitro fertilization.Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019; 35: 485-489https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2018.1540575
- Spirituality, infertility-related stress, and QoL in Brazilian infertile couples: analysis using the actor-partner interdependence mediation model.Res Nurs Health. 2018; 41: 156-165https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21860
- Factors influencing infertility-related QoL in women with infertility.Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2020; 26: 49-60https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2020.03.08
- Effects of uncertainty and spousal support on infertility-related quality of life in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies.Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2020; 26: 72-83https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2020.03.15
- Quality of life and its influencing factors of couples referred to an infertility center in Shiraz, Iran.Int J Fertil Steril. 2018; 11: 293-297https://doi.org/10.22074/ijfs.2018.5123
- Factors influencing infertility-related quality of life in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: focusing on depression and resilience.Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2017; 23: 117-125https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2017.23.2.117
- Effects of psychological intervention for Korean infertile women under in Vitro Fertilization on infertility stress, depression, intimacy, sexual satisfaction and fatigue.Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2020; 34: 211-217https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2020.05.001
- The association of type D personality and depression with infertility in women.J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 41: 98-105https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2019.1573224
- Type D personality. A potential risk factor refined.J Psychosom Res. 2000; 49: 255-266https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3999(00)00177-x
- DS14: standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and Type D personality.Psychosom Med. 2005; 67: 89-97https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000149256.81953.49
- Type D personality in the general population: a systematic review of health status, mechanisms of disease, and work-related problems.Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8: 9https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-9
- How patient-centered care relates to patients' quality of life and distress: a study in 427 women experiencing infertility.Hum Reprod. 2012; 27: 488-495https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der386
- Assessment of the type D personality construct in the Korean population: a validation study of the Korean DS14.J Korean Med Sci. 2011; 26: 116-123https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2011.26.1.116
- The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus.Arch Neurol. 1989; 46: 1121-1123https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022
- Clinical usefulness of fatigue severity scale for patients with fatigue, anxiety, or depression.Korean J Psychosom Med. 2001; 9: 164-173
- The Fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) tool: development and general psychometric properties.Hum Reprod. 2011; 26: 2084-2091https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der171
- Psychological distress and fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) in infertile Korean women: the first validation study of Korean FertiQoL.Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2016; 43: 174-180https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2016.43.3.174
- Predictors of quality of life in patients with heart failure.Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2014 Oct; 11: 290-298https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12034
- Type D personality predicts poor medication adherence in myocardial infarction patients.Psychol Health. 2011; 26: 703-712https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.488265
- The impact of Type D personality and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein on health-related quality of life in patients with artrial fibrillation.Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011; 11: 304-312https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2011.04.004
- The relationship between fatigue, health-promoting behavior, and depression among infertile women.Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2019; 25: 273-284https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2019.25.3.273
- Development of an imagery-focused music listening program to improve emotion regulation among infertile women.J Music Hum Behav. 2020; 17: 29-56https://doi.org/10.21187/jmhb.2020.17.2.029
- Factors affecting infertility-related QoL among infertility women.J Korean Soc Matern Child Health. 2019; 23: 191-201https://doi.org/10.21896/jksmch.2019.23.3.191
- Type D personality is a predictor of resilience among nursing students.J Nurs Educ. 2018; 57: 296-299https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180420-08
- Influence of Type D personality on QoL in university students: the mediating effect of health-promoting behavior and subjective health status.Psychol Sch. 2020; 57: 768-782https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22357
- A comparison of the health status and health-promoting behaviors between type D personality and non-type D personality in middle-aged women.Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2011; 17: 337-345https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2011.17.4.337
- Relationships among Type D personality, symptoms, and QoL in patients with ovarian cancer receiving chemotherapy.J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 39: 289-296https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482X.2017.1372416
- Mediating effects of depression and social support between Type D personality and QoL in hemodialysis patients.Korean J Adult Nurs. 2019; 31: 439-448https://doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2019.31.4.439
- Type D personality, mental distress, social support and health-related quality of life in coronary artery disease patients with heart failure: a longitudinal observational study.Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015; 13: 1-11https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0204-2
- Sexual satisfaction, intimacy and relationship of couples undergoing infertility treatment.J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2019; 37: 108-122https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2018.1529407
- The effects of lifestyle interventions on the health-promoting behavior, type D personality, cognitive function and body composition of low-income middle-aged Korean women.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 5637https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115637
- Self-care and health-related QoL in chronic heart failure: a longitudinal analysis.Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2017; 16: 605-613https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515117702021
Article info
Publication history
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy