Systematic review identifies challenges in women's IVF experiences, suggesting enhanced psychological support services.
AIM: This systematic review (SR) explores women’s experiences by identifying challenging encounters and the support available, while recommending the development of an integrated, person-centered service to strengthen psychological support during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. METHODS: A SR was conducted to examine the barriers and facilitators influencing women’s IVF treatment experiences. The database search began on March 12, 2024 for a period of two weeks and included the use of Medline Ultimate, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Ultimate, focusing on reproductive health, IVF treatment, and mental well-being. Boolean operators were also included in the search to refine and narrow the results. The search yielded 5,604 results; after removing duplicates and ineligible records, 4,803 articles were screened. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analysis 2020 reporting guidelines to ensure transparency and completeness in reporting the search and selection process. After implementing the eligibility criteria, seven qualitative studies were included. This selection was based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist to ensure methodological quality. RESULTS: Analysis revealed essential themes affecting women’s psychological well-being during IVF treatment, including physiological and emotional challenges, uncertainty about treatment outcomes, financial pressures and treatment limitations, inadequate communication, and social difficulties with insufficient support. CONCLUSION: Women undergoing IVF experience significant challenges that impact their psychological health. Psychological support services remain limited and are not consistently integrated into IVF care. There is a clear need for the implementation of standardized psychological support to improve women’s mental well-being. Integrating these comprehensive services into routine IVF practice should be prioritized in future policy and clinical guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fakih et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: