Effect of Support Program for Women Undergoing Fertility Treatment

最后，将7个同意的设施分为两组，分为4个设施和3个设施;方案A组（实验组）由4个设施组成，方案B组（对照组）由3个设施组成。实验组招募了99名参与者，对照组招募了46名参与者。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。在两组退出的37名参与者中，有15人因怀孕而退出。由于怀孕的女性不能成为本研究的受试者，因此排除15名怀孕的女性，共125名参与者（实验组85名，对照组40名）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观察值。 关于我们 SF 36的变化在两组之间存在显著差异。身体问题（RP）导致的功能作用为t=2.500（123），p=.014（实验组-1.71 20. 71，对照组-11.33 18. 64）。情绪问题（RE）对功能的影响为t=2.762（123），p=.007（实验组1.26±8.53，对照组-8.38 ~17.51），身体综合评分（PCS）t=2.424（123），p=0.17（实验组0.07±8.90，对照组-3.83 ~7.17），进行ITT分析和符合方案分析后，采用协方差分析调整了外部因素的影响SF 36分量表RP、RE和PCS的每个变化被视为诱导变量，程序被视为固定变量。年龄、不孕时间、GSES评分、HADS抑郁基线水平、SF 36 RP、RE和PCS基线水平、满意度基线水平、是否有注册专家护士（CEN）、不孕原因以及是否使用促排卵药物作为治疗方法作为协变量。结果显示，所有3个变量都没有显示与程序的交互作用的外部因素。医院焦虑抑郁量表（HADS）和满意度的变化显示，异常焦虑和抑郁的比例，异常的发生率，或变化没有显着差异。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