Effect of Support Program for Women Undergoing Fertility Treatment

最终，7个同意的设施被分成两组，分为4个设施和3个设施，方案A组(试验组)由4个设施组成，方案B组(控制组)由3个设施组成。试验组招募的受试者人数为99人，控制组为46人。在项目开始时，实验组有96人，控制组有44人。实验结束时，实验组有65人，控制组有38人。在退出两组的37名参与者中，有15人因怀孕而退出。由于怀孕的妇女不能成为本研究的对象，排除15名怀孕的妇女，共有125名参与者，85名试验组和40名对照组，接受意向治疗(ITT)分析。其他22名退出的参与者在退出之前都被分配了一个最终的观测值。Sigif…两组间SF36差异有统计学意义。因身体问题(RP)而产生的功能作用t=2.500，p=0.014(实验组-1.71±20.71，对照组-11.33±18.64)。情绪问题对功能的影响为t=2.762(12 3)，p=0.0 0 7(实验组1.2 6±8.5 3，对照组-8.38±17.5 1)。躯体总分t=2.424(12 3)，p=0.17(实验组0.0 7±8.90，对照组-3.83±7.17)。将PCS作为诱导变量，将程序作为固定变量。将年龄、不孕年限、GSES评分、HADS抑郁基线水平、各SF36 RP、RE和PCS基线水平、满意度基线水平、有无执业专家护士(CEN)、不孕原因、是否使用促排卵药物作为治疗方法作为协变量。HADS(医院焦虑抑郁量表)和满意度的变化在异常焦虑和抑郁比率、异常发生率或变异方面均无显著差异。较少

In the end, the 7 consenting facilities were allocated into two groups, divided between 4 facilities and 3 facilities ; the Program A group (experimental group) consisted of 4 facilities and the Program B group (control group) consisted of 3 facilities. The number of recruited participants was 99 in the experimental group and 46 in the control group. At the start of the program there were 96 in the experimental group and 44 in the control group. At the end of the program there were 65 in the experimental group and 38 in the control group. Out of the 37 participants who withdrew from both groups, 15 dropped out due to pregnancy. Since the women who became pregnant could not be subjects of this study, excluding those 15 who became pregnant, a total of 125 participants, 85 in the experimental group and 40 in the control group, were subject to Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The 22 other participants who dropped out were each assigned a final observed value before they withdrew.A signif … More icant difference was noted between the 2 groups in the variation in SF36. The Role of functioning due to physical problems (RP) was t=2.500(123), p=.014 (experimental group -1.71±20.71, control group -11.33±18.64). The Role of functioning due to emotional problems (RE) was t=2.762(123), p=.007 (experimental group 1.26±8.53, control group -8.38±17.51).The physical summary score (PCS) was t=2.424(123), p=0.17 (experimental group 0.07±8.90, control group -3.83±7.17).After conducting ITT analysis and per protocol analysis, covariance analysis was conducted to adjust the influence of extraneous factors (confounding factors) related to the variances seen in the SF36 subscales between the 2 groups.Each variation of SF36 subscales RP and RE, and PCS were treated as induced variables and the program as a fixed variable. Age, length of infertility, GSES score, HADS depression baseline level, each SF36 RP, RE, and PCS baseline level, degree of satisfaction baseline level, the presence or absence of a Certified Expert Nurse (CEN), cause of infertility, and the use or nonuse of ovulation induction drugs as a treatment method were added as covariates. Results for all 3 variations reveal no extraneous factors showing interaction with the program.HADS (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and the variation in degree of satisfaction showed no significant difference in abnormal anxiety and depression ratio, incidence of abnormality, or variation. Less