Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40913260›Full record

ArticleNursing & health sciences2025

Complementary Interventions Using Technology for Individuals With Infertility Using Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.

Jiwon Lee, Jaejin Kang, Jo Woon Seok

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing & health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Jiwon LeeSchool of Nursing, Dongnam Health University, Suwon, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0655-5915
Jaejin KangCollege of Nursing, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2804-6866
Jo Woon SeokCollege of Nursing, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9318-3739

Funding

Dongnam Health University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global rise in infertility highlights the need for personalized informational and psychological support. Digital health technology offers a promising avenue; however, knowledge gaps remain regarding optimal delivery methods, outcomes, and limitations. This scoping review synthesizes recent evidence on complementary interventions using technology for individuals with infertility undergoing reproductive technology-assisted interventions and evaluates their effectiveness and limitations. Seven databases were systematically searched to identify studies published in English or Korean between 2000 and December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and data were synthesized using a standardized template. Of 1353 screened studies, 16 were selected, featuring interventions such as web-based programs, mobile applications, and online meetings. Positive outcomes were observed in knowledge, stress reduction, self-efficacy, coping, and dietary behaviors. However, mixed results were found for fertility-related stress, depression, and anxiety, with no significant improvements in fertility-related quality of life, health behaviors, and pregnancy rates. While digital interventions show promise, further research is needed to validate their effectiveness through large-scale randomized controlled trials and to develop standardized assessment tools for better implementation and evaluation.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesInfertilityReproductive Techniques, AssistedFemaleHumansassisted reproductive technologycomplementary interventiondigital healtheHealthinfertility

Identifiers

PMID40913260
PMCPMC12413509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.