Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35928048›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2022

'A sorrow shared …': a qualitative content analysis of what couples with recurrent miscarriages expect from one another and their families and friends.

C Jansen, E Kuhlmann, P Scharli, M Schick, B Ditzen, L Langer, T Strowitzki, R-J Kuon, T Wischmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Women's Experiences of Psychosocial Support after Recurrent Miscarriage: A Qualitative Content Analysis.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Psychological aspects of infertility.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C JansenInstitute of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3713-1015
E KuhlmannInstitute of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9302-5316
P ScharliInstitute of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4856-1945
M SchickInstitute of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0400-7595
B DitzenInstitute of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5853-4572
L LangerDepartment of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Fertility Disorders, Heidelberg University Women's Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2400-612X
T StrowitzkiDepartment of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Fertility Disorders, Heidelberg University Women's Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7024-855X
R-J KuonDepartment of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Fertility Disorders, Heidelberg University Women's Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1671-0694
T WischmannInstitute of Medical Psychology, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7837-0138
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhen couples have to face recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), what are the partners' wishes and needs and what is their perception of helpful and unhelpful factors with regard to their own, their partners' and their families' and friends' ways of dealing with the problem? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women and men with repeated miscarriages want open communication about their losses, but expect a sensitive and empathetic attitude from others, not pity or trivialization. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: RPL not only causes the women affected and their partners considerable emotional distress; it also has an impact on the couples' relationships and the way they relate to their families and friends. Studies suggest that women have a greater need than their male partners to talk about their losses and that these differences may lead to dissatisfaction and cause relational tension. In addition, men often assume a 'mainstay' role, supporting their partners and displaying fortitude in the face of distress. As yet, however, little research has been conducted so far on the question of what the members of couples with RPL expect from one another and from their families and friends. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: The study sample consisted of 147 couples and 17 women with at least 2 miscarriages attending the special unit for RPL at the University Women's Hospital in Heidelberg (Germany) for the first time between September 2018 and October 2020 (response rate: 82.7%). The patients were asked to participate in this combined qualitative and questionnaire study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsIn order to explore the wishes and needs of those affected in more detail, the free text responses obtained were examined in this study by using qualitative content analysis. Categories and subcategories were created inductively to summarize and systematize content. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Patients affected by RPL want their partners and their families and friends to deal with the topic openly and empathically. In the partnership itself, acceptance of individual grieving modes and sharing a common goal are important factors. Men, in particular, want their partners to be optimistic in facing up to the situation. Regarding communication with family and friends, it transpired that 'good advice', playing the matter down, inquiries about family planning, pity and special treatment are explicitly not appreciated. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample was a convenience sample, so self-selection effects cannot be excluded. In addition, the level of education in the sample was above average. Accordingly, the sample cannot be regarded as representative. The results of the content analysis are based on the respondents' written answers to open-ended questions in the questionnaire. Unlike qualitative interview studies, further questioning was not possible in the case of ambiguities or to request more details. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsFrank and sincere communication about miscarriages and about one's own emotions and needs should be promoted both in the partnership and among family members and friends in order to strengthen the potential of social support as a resource. Open communication about the different needs of both partners is necessary to create mutual understanding. The results show the importance not only of empathy and consideration for the couples concerned but also their desire not to be pitied. Striking a fine balance between fellow-feeling and pity may also lead to tension, and this potential dilemma should be addressed in psychosocial counselling. Overall, the study contributes to a better understanding of what couples want from their families and friends when they are attempting to come to terms with RPL and highlights potential challenges in the interaction between affected couples and their families and friends. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was received for this study. None of the authors declared any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00014965.

Indexed as

communicationcontent analysismental healthmiscarriagerecurrent pregnancy loss

Identifiers

PMID35928048
PMCPMC9345061
OpenAlexW4286110998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.