Examination of the relationship between perception of spousal support level and pregnancy success of couples receiving IVF treatment

Çiğdem Karaca; Aliye  Bulut; Selin Kenan; Fatma Nur Karakuş; Özlem Akay

doi:10.26900/hsq.2721

Authors

Çiğdem Karaca Gaziantep Islam Science and Technology University / Türkiye 0000-0003-2106-2422
Aliye Bulut Gaziantep Islam Science and Technology University / Türkiye 0000-0002-4326-0000
Selin Kenan Gaziantep City Hospital / Türkiye 0000-0001-7957-7328
Fatma Nur Karakuş Yunus Emre State Hospital / Türkiye 0000-0002-0026-8766
Özlem Akay Gaziantep Islam Science and Technology University / Türkiye 0000-0002-9539-7252

10.26900/hsq.2721

Abstract

Our study aimed to investigate the relationships between perceived spousal support and embryo number, pregnancy outcome, blood levels of FSH, LH, progesterone and AMH in women and semen parameters in men in couples being treated with in vitro fertilization (IVF). In the study conducted with 36 women and 36 men who underwent IVF, data were collected using a questionnaire form and the Spouse Support Scale (SSS) and by retrospective file scanning. It was found that high levels of PRL and AMH hormones in women and young age in men positively influenced pregnancy positivity, pregnancy positivity increased as the number of embryos formed increased, and there was no significant difference between SSS subgroup scores and pregnancy outcomes. It was found that those who had previously failed in IVF treatment had an increased need for esteem and social interest support. It was observed that pregnancy outcome in IVF treatment was dependent on oocyte reserve and embryo number, and that the need for esteem and social support increased with repeated IVF attempts.

Keywords:

In vitro fertilization semen analysis hormones spousal support

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Skowrońska M, Pawłowski M, Milewski R. A literature review and a proposed classification of the relationships between ovulatory infertility and lifestyle factors based on the three groups of ovulation disorders classified by WHO. J Clin Med. 2023;12(19):6275. doi: 10.3390/jcm12196275.

Nallella KP, Sharma RK, Aziz N, Agarwal A. Significance of sperm characteristics in the evaluation of male infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):629-34. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.08.024.

Holesh JE, Bass AN, Lord M. Physiology, Ovulation. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL); 2025.

Abbara A, Clarke SA, Dhillo WS. Novel concepts for inducing final oocyte maturation in in vitro fertilization treatment. Endocr Rev. 2018;39(5):593-628. doi: 10.1210/er.2017-00236.

Peluso C, Fonseca FLA, Rodart IF, Cavalcanti V, Gastaldo G, Christofolini DM, et al. AMH: An ovarian reserve biomarker in assisted reproduction. Clin Chim Acta. 2014;437:175-82. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2014.07.029.

Cedars MI. Evaluation of female fertility - AMH and ovarian reserve testing. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):1510-9. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgac039.

Agarwal A, Baskaran S, Parekh N, Cho C-L, Henkel R, Vij S, et al. Male infertility. Lancet. 2021;397(10271):319-33. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32667-2.

Lynch CD, Sundaram R, Maisog JM, Sweeney AM, Buck Louis GM. Preconception stress increases the risk of infertility: results from a couple-based prospective cohort study—the LIFE study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):1067-75. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu032.

Dong Y-Z, Zhou F-J, Sun Y-P. Psychological stress is related to a decrease of serum anti-müllerian hormone level in infertile women. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:1-4. doi: 10.1186/s12958-017-0271-4.

Collodel G, Moretti E, Fontani V, Rinaldi S, Aravagli L, Saragò G, et al. Effect of emotional stress on sperm quality. Indian J Med Res. 2008;128(3):254-61.

Belhan S, Huyut Z, Yıldırım S, Algül S. Effects of different stress applications on some reproductive hormones, sperm parameters, lipid profile, immunohistochemical and immunofluorescent markers. Van Vet J. 2023;34(3):263-70. doi: 10.36483/vanvetj.1326578.

Nordkap L, Priskorn L, Bräuner EV, Hansen ÅM, Bang AK, Holmboe SA, et al. Impact of psychological stress measured in three different scales on testis function: a cross-sectional study of 1362 young men. Andrology. 2020;8(6):1674-86. doi: 10.1111/andr.12835.

Oron G, Allnutt E, Lackman T, Sokal-Arnon T, Holzer H, Takefman J. A prospective study using Hatha Yoga for stress reduction among women waiting for IVF treatment. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(5):542-8. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.01.011.

Karpat C, Erensoy H. A pilot study on stress and coping strategies in infertile women under in vitro fertilization treatment [in Turkish]. TJFMPC. 2020;14(3):461-7. doi:10.21763/tjfmpc.737420.

Çiftçi Arıdağ N, Erus SM, Ünsal Seydooğulları S. The relationship of spouse support with the marital satisfaction and the psychological well-being [in Turkish]. ESOSDER. 2019;18(71):1014-24. doi: 10.17755/esosder.424421.

Civan E, Beydağ KD. Investigation of the relationship between infertility stress and spouse support levels of infertility women and men [in Turkish]. AIJHS. 2023;3(1):58-63. doi: 10.58252/artukluder.1228443.

Yıldırım İ. Development of spouse support scale. Turk Psychol Couns Guid J. 2004;3(22):19-26. doi: 10.17066/pdrd.95605.

Nagy ZP, Liu J, Joris H, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Camus M, et al. The result of intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not related to any of the three basic sperm parameters. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(5):1123-9. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136104.

Kidd SA, Eskenazi B, Wyrobek AJ. Effects of male age on semen quality and fertility: A review of the literature. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(2):237-48. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01679-4.

Kasman AM, Li S, Zhao Q, Behr B, Eisenberg ML. Relationship between male age, semen parameters and assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Andrology. 2021;9(1):245-52. doi: 10.1111/andr.12908.

Belva F, Bonduelle M, Roelants M, Michielsen D, Van Steirteghem A, Verheyen G, et al. Semen quality of young adult ICSI offspring: The first results. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(12):2811-20. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew245.

Begueria R, Garcia D, Obradors A, Poisot F, Vassena R, Vernaeve V. Paternal age and assisted reproductive outcomes in ICSI donor oocytes: Is there an effect of older fathers?. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(10):2114-22. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu189.

Salama S, Sharaf M, Salem SM, Rasheed MA, Salama E, Elnahas T, et al. FSH versus AMH: Age-related relevance to ICSI results. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2021;26:1-8. doi: 10.1186/s43043-021-00071-6.

Alanazi H, Bushaqer N, Ayyoub H, Dayoub N, Hassan S. Antimullerian hormone (AMH) level and IVF/ICSI cycle outcome in expected poor responders. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2018;23(3):246-50. doi: 10.1016/j.mefs.2017.10.007.

Dai X, Wang Y, Yang H, Gao T, Yu C, Cao F, et al. AMH has no role in predicting oocyte quality in women with advanced age undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):19750. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76543-y.

Yao L, Zhang W, Li H, Lin W. The role of serum AMH and FF AMH in predicting pregnancy outcome in the fresh cycle of IVF/ICSI: A meta-analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(2):1755.

Zhang D, Yuan X, Zhen J, Sun Z, Deng C, Yu Q. Mildly higher serum prolactin levels are directly proportional to cumulative pregnancy outcomes in in-vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Front Endocrinol. 2020;11:516793. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00584.

Reljič M, Vlaisavljević V. The preovulatory serum estradiol pattern in natural IVF/ICSI cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16:535-9.

Yenigül NN, Özelci R, Başer E, Dilbaz S, Aldemir O, Dilbaz B, et al. Does the decrease in E2 levels between the trigger of ovulation and embryo transfer affect the reproductive outcome in IVF-ICSI cycles? Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;20(3):199. doi: 10.4274/tjod.galenos.2023.91043.

Cai QF, Wan F, Huang R, Zhang HW. Factors predicting the cumulative outcome of IVF/ICSI treatment: A multivariable analysis of 2450 patients. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(9):2532-40. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der228.

Erenus M, Zouves C, Rajamahendran P, Leung S, Fluker M, Gomel V. The effect of embryo quality on subsequent pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1991;56(4):707-10. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)54603-2.

Malina A, Pooley JA. Psychological consequences of IVF fertilization–Review of research. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2017;24(4):554-8. doi: 10.5604/12321966.1232085.

Lee HS, Boo S, Ahn J-A, Song J-E. Effects of uncertainty and spousal support on infertility-related quality of life in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies. KJWHN. 2020;26(1):72-83. doi: 10.4069/kjwhn.2020.03.15.

Mitrović M, Kostić JO, Panić D. Social support and relationship satisfaction as predictors of positive and negative affect in infertile woman during IVF treatment. Facta Univ Ser Philos Sociol Psychol Hist. 2021;20(2):123-36. doi: 10.22190/FUPSPH2102123M.

Chaves C, Canavarro MC, Moura‐Ramos M. The role of dyadic coping on the marital and emotional adjustment of couples with infertility. Fam Process. 2019;58(2):509-23. doi: 10.1111/famp.12364.

Metin A, Pasinlioğlu T. The relationship between perceived social support and prenatal attachment in pregnant women. JACSD. 2016(5):49-. doi: 10.17367/jacsd.2016516857.

Çıldır G, Karakoç A, Karaca S. Evaluation of fathers participation at infant care [in Turkish]. SSTB. 2014;10.4: 1-15.

Yüksekal Z, Yurdakul M. Spouse support perception of pregnants and associeted factors. [in Turkish]. TJFMPC. 2021;15(4):800-8. doi: 10.21763/tjfmpc.971774.

Sohbati F, Hasanpoor-Azghady SB, Jafarabadi M, Amiri-Farahani L, Mohebbi M. Psychological well-being of infertile women and its relationship with demographic factors and fertility history: A cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12905-020-01167-3.

Türeyici L, Kahveci B, Ürünsak İF. Evaluation of hysteroscopy findings in infertility patients with IVF-ICSI / ET failure. [in Turkish]. Cukurova Med J. 2021;46(3):1168-74. doi: 10.17826/cumj.915846.

Mindes EJ, Ingram KM, Covington SN. The influence of spousal support and unsupportive social interactions on emotional responses during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:S232-3. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.600.

Xu Y, Burleson BR. Effects of sex, culture, and support type on perceptions of spousal social support: An assessment of the “support gap” hypothesis in early marriage. Hum Commun Res. 2001;27(4):535-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00792.x.