ArticleInternational journal of fertility & sterility2019
Development and Validation of A Decision-Making Donor Conception Questionnaire in Iranian Infertile Couples.
Article in International journal of fertility & sterility, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Infertile Couples' Decisions to Disclose Donor Conception to The Future Child.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2020Article
- Development and Psychometric Properties of the Women's Recovery of Postnatal Perineal Injuries Questionnaire (WRPPIQ).International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2020Article
- Concerns of Infertile Women Candidates for Egg Donation: A Qualitative Study.Journal of family & reproductive health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the fact that many infertile couples have to decide about whether or not to choose donor conception, there is no predictive scale for evaluating the process of decision-making on donor conception and its determinants in such couples. The present study was conducted to develop a decision-making questionnaire for selecting donor conception and assess its psychometric properties in Iranian infertile couples. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional validation study was conducted based on the method developed by DeVellis (2012) in four steps at Milad Infertility Clinic, Mashhad, Iran. The dimensions of the concept of decisionmaking were determined in the first step based on the qualitative results obtained from 38 semi-structured in-depth interviews. Items that were appropriate for the questionnaire were developed in the second step using the qualitative data and a review of the literature. In the third step, the research team reviewed and eliminated some of the items. The fourth step evaluated the face, content and construct validity of the questionnaire through exploratory factor analysis on a sample of 220 infertile couples using convenience sampling and investigated its initial and final reliability.
resultsBased on the results of the qualitative study, a pool of 170 items was developed, 101 of which were eliminated after revision due to ambiguity, repetition or their poor face and content validity and initial reliability. The questionnaire was evaluated for its construct validity with 69 items. After the exploratory factor analysis, the decisionmaking donor conception questionnaire (DMDCQ) having 51 items and seven factors, was finalized. All the factors had Cronbach's alpha values of 0.75-0.87 and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) greater than 0.7.
conclusionThis study led to development of a valid and reliable scale for examining infertile couples' decisionmaking about whether or not to use donor conception as well as the determinants of this decision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.