Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38852061›Full record

Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2024

The clinical effectiveness of the Mind/Body Program for Infertility on wellbeing and assisted reproduction outcomes: a randomized controlled trial in search for active ingredients.

Judit Szigeti F, Csaba Kazinczi, Georgina Szabó, Miklós Sipos, Péter Przemyslaw Ujma, György Purebl

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04151485 (The Effect of the Mind/Body Program for Fertility, Hungarian Version, on Psychological Well-Being and Assisted Reproduction Technology), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04151485 naunknown statusnot on this map

The Effect of the Mind/Body Program for Fertility, Hungarian Version, on Psychological Well-Being and Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSemmelweis UniversityRan2019 to 2023Enrolled177ConditionsInfertility, FemaleArmsMind/Body Program for Fertility (Domar et al., 2011), Fertility Support Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Judit Szigeti FInstitute of Behavioural Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-7155-6028
Csaba KazincziDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-7748-757X
Georgina SzabóDoctoral School of Mental Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-6809-9674
Miklós SiposDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assisted Reproduction Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0009-0009-0827-6689
Péter Przemyslaw UjmaInstitute of Behavioural Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-7981-3009
György PureblInstitute of Behavioural Sciences, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-9750-2001

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionDoes the Mind/Body Program for Infertility (MBPI) perform better, due to certain distinctive elements, than a partly matched support group in improving the wellbeing and medically assisted reproduction (MAR) outcomes of women with elevated distress levels in a clinical setting? SUMMARY ANSWER: While robust enhancements occurred in the wellbeing overall, the cognitive behavioural and formalized stress management elements of the MBPI allowed a significantly stronger improvement in trait anxiety, but not in other mental health and MAR outcomes, compared with a support group. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Mind-body psychological programmes adjacent to MAR have been found to improve women's mental states and possibly increase chances of pregnancy. However, not enough is known about the programme's effectiveness among patients with elevated distress levels in routine clinical settings, nor is it clear which of its particular ingredients are specifically effective. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A pre-post design, single-centre, randomized controlled trial was performed between December 2019 and October 2022 (start and end of recruitment, respectively). The sample size (n = 168) was calculated to detect superiority of the MBPI in improving fertility-related quality of life. Randomization was computer-based, with random numbers concealing identities of patients until after allocation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsThe trial was conducted at a large university teaching hospital. A total of 168 patients were randomly assigned to the mind-body (MBPI) group (n = 84) and the fertility support (FS) control group (n = 84). Patients received a 10-week, 135-min/week group intervention, with the FS group following the same format as the MBPI group, but with a less restricted and systematic content, and without the presumed effective factors. The number of patients analysed was n = 74 (MBPI) and n = 68 (FS) for post-intervention psychological outcomes, and n = 54 (MBPI) and n = 56 (FS) for pregnancy outcomes at a 30-month follow-up. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Significant improvements occurred in both groups in all psychological domains (adjusted P < 0.001), except for treatment-related quality of life. Linear mixed-model regression analysis did not reveal significantly greater pre-post improvements in the MBPI group than in the FS group in fertility-related quality of life (difference in differences (DD) = 4.11 [0.42, 7.80], d = 0.32, adjusted P = 0.124), treatment-related quality of life (DD = -3.08 [-7.72, 1.55], d = -0.20, adjusted P = 0.582), infertility-specific stress (DD = -2.54 [-4.68, 0.41], d = -0.36, adjusted P = 0.105), depression (DD = -1.16 [3.61, 1.29], d = -0.13, adjusted P = 0.708), and general stress (DD = -0.62 [-1.91, 0.68], d = -0.13, adjusted P = 0.708), but it did show a significantly larger improvement in trait anxiety (DD = -3.60 [-6.16, -1.04], d = -0.32, adjusted P = 0.042). Logistic regression showed no group effect on MAR pregnancies, spontaneous pregnancies, or live births. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The follow-up only covered MAR-related medical outcomes and no psychological variables, and their rates were not equal in the two groups. Biological factors other than age, aetiology, and duration of infertility may have confounded the study results. Loss to follow-up was between 5% and 10%, which may have led to some bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThe psychologically and medically heterogeneous sample, the normal clinical setting and the low attrition rate all raise the external validity and generalizability of our study. The MBPI works not only in controlled conditions, but also in routine MAR practice, where it can be introduced as a cost-effective, low-intensity psychological intervention, within the framework of stepped care. More studies are needed to further identify its active ingredients. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04151485. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 5 November 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 15 December 2019.

Indexed as

Infertility, FemaleQuality of LifeReproductive Techniques, AssistedAdultAnxietyFemaleHumansInfertilityMental HealthMind-Body TherapiesPregnancyPregnancy RateStress, PsychologicalTreatment Outcomeinfertility-specific distressMARmind body programmepregnancy ratequality of liferandomized controlled trialsupport groupwellbeing

Identifiers

PMID38852061
PMCPMC11291950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.