Effect of Support Program for Women Undergoing Fertility Treatment

最后将7个同意的设施分成两组，分为4个设施和3个设施；方案A组（实验组）设4个设施，方案B组（对照组）设3个设施。实验组招募了99人，对照组招募了46人。在项目开始时，实验组有96人，对照组有44人。在项目结束时，实验组有65人，对照组有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作为本研究的对象，排除了15名怀孕的妇女，总共125名参与者，实验组85名，对照组40名，进行了意向治疗（ITT）分析。另外22名退出的参与者在退出前被分配了一个最终观察值。在SF36的变异上，两组之间的差异更为显著。生理问题所致功能障碍（RP）的作用为t=2.500(123), p= 0.014实验组-1.71±20.71，对照组-11.33±18.64。情绪问题所致功能障碍（RE）的作用为t=2.762(123), p= 0.007（实验组1.26±8.53，对照组-8.38±17.51）。物理综合评分（PCS） t=2.424(123), p=0.17（实验组0.07±8.90，对照组-3.83±7.17）。在进行ITT分析和各方案分析后，进行协方差分析，调整与两组间SF36分量表方差相关的外来因素（混杂因素）的影响。将SF36子量表RP、RE和PCS的每一次变化作为诱导变量，程序作为固定变量。添加年龄、不孕持续时间、GSES评分、HADS抑郁基线水平、SF36 RP、RE和PCS各基线水平、满意度基线水平、是否有注册专家护士（CEN）、不孕原因、是否使用促排卵药物作为治疗方法作为辅助变量。所有3个变量的结果显示没有外来因素显示与程序的相互作用。医院焦虑抑郁量表（HADS）及满意度变异在异常焦虑抑郁比、异常发生率、变异数方面均无显著差异。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