Cited by 75Reproductive Health and TechnologiesMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy

Efficacy of psychological interventions for mental health and pregnancy rates among individuals with infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dube, Loveness, Bright, Katherine, Hayden, K Alix, Gordon, Jennifer L·2023·Human Reproduction Update

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are highly prevalent among individuals struggling with infertility. Thus, numerous psychological interventions have been adapted to infertility, with the aim of relieving distress as well as increasing pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of psychological interventions on infertility-related distress and pregnancy rates among individuals and/or couples with infertility and to analyse their overall effect. It also sought to examine potential treatment moderators, including intervention length, format and therapeutic approach. SEARCH METHODS: An electronic search of 11 databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, was performed for studies published until January 2022. The inclusion criteria were RCTs conducted on humans and published in English. Psychological outcomes of interest included anxiety, depression, infertility-related distress, wellbeing and marital satisfaction. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to assess the overall quality of the research evidence. OUTCOMES: There were 58 RCTs in total, including 54 which included psychological outcomes and 21 which assessed pregnancy rates. Studies originated from all regions of the world, but nearly half of the studies were from the Middle East. Although a beneficial effect on combined psychological outcomes was found (Hedge’s g = 0.82, P < 0.0001), it was moderated by region (P < 0.00001) such that studies from the Middle East exhibited large effects (g = 1.40, P < 0.0001), while the effects were small among studies conducted elsewhere (g = 0.23, P < 0.0001). Statistically adjusting for study region in a meta-regression, neither intervention length, therapeutic approach, therapy format, nor participant gender (P > 0.05) moderated the effect of treatment. A beneficial treatment effect on pregnancy (RR (95% CI) = 1.25 (1.07–1.47), P = 0.005) was not moderated by region, treatment length, approach or format (P > 0.05). Largely due to the lack of high quality RCTs, the quality of the available evidence was rated as low to moderate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This is the first meta-analysis of RCTs testing the effect of psychological interventions on infertility-related distress and pregnancy rates. These findings suggest that in most regions of the world, psychological interventions are associated with small reductions in distress and modest effects on conception, suggesting the need for more effective interventions. These findings must be considered in light of the fact that the majority of the included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias. Rigorously conducted trials are needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humupd/dmac034

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 101 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dube, L., Bright, K., Hayden, K. A., & Gordon, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Regina (CA)
  • Alberta Health Services (CA)
  • Department of Libraries and Cultural Resources, University of Calgary , Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Corresponding author
Gordon, Jennifer L
Venue
Human Reproduction Update
Published
2022-10-03
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
71-94
ISSN
  • 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2369
OpenAlex
W4300687628
Cited by
75
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction Update (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation Patient-Oriented Research
  • Postdoctoral Fellowship through the University of Calgary
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Keywords
infertility, psychological intervention, depression, anxiety, pregnancy rate, couples, marital satisfaction, well-being, treatment moderators, Middle East, treatment duration, treatment options, gender differences, quality of evidence, randomized controlled trials, meta-regression, subgroup analysis, subgroup heterogeneity, subgroup size
MeSH terms
Psychosocial Intervention, Anxiety, Female, Humans, Infertility, Mental Health, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Rate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review