Attitudes and Knowledge of Infertile Iranian Couples Among Treatment with Assisted Reproductive Technologies During COVID-19 Pandemics

  1. Sepideh Peivandi
  2. Alireza Razavi
  3. Shervin Shafiei
  4. Marzieh Zamaniyan
  5. Asma Orafaie
  6. Hamed Jafarpour

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the continuation of all non-emergency medical treatment and patients potentially suffer from restrictions including patients under infertility treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge and attitudes of infertile couples about continuing assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) therapy during the COVID-19 outbreak, in Sari, Iran. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective longitudinal investigation on potential infertile couples for treatment with ARTs referred to our infertility clinic from March 2020 to June 2020. Ninety-two patients were studied voluntarily and anonymously in this study. A self-developed structured questionnaire was used to assess the attitude towards continuing infertility treatment. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Thirty-two patients (33.33%) had decreased motivation to continue treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fear of transmission to the fetus (28.13%) had the highest frequency among the causes of decreased motivation to continue treatment (P-value = 0.011). Trust on the support of the treatment team (56.67%) was the most common reason for not reducing motivation in patients without decreased motivation (P <0.001). Conclusion: Despite the COVID-19 pandemy, in Iran most infertile patients tended to continue ARTs. Although many patients had passable knowledge on COVID-19, the stress of infertility and the high desire of infertile couples to have children did not deter them from continuing their therapy.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.18502/jfrh.v16i2.9480
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.01.20186320: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: This study was performed after the approval of the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences (code: IR.MAZUMS.REC.1399.03).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Study design and participants: This study is a prospective longitudinal investigation on potential infertile couples for treatment with ARTs who referred to our infertility clinic from 4 March 2020 to 20 June 2020.
    ARTs
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.01.20186320v1 on medRxiv