Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Associate Professor, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2
Associate Professor, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
3
PH.D in Biostatistics, Professor, Social Department of Health Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reproductive motivation is a complex issue that has cultural, behavioral, and
ideological roots and changes in the context of population transfer and economic and social
development. Reproductive motivations include positive and negative motivations that can be
influenced by education. Training can be done in different ways. It seems that face‑to‑face training
increases learning. On the other hand, face‑to‑face training increases participants’ cooperation and
desire for educational topics. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare and determine the
effect of two counseling methods on the fertility motivation of infertile couples.
MATERIALS AND METHODS : This intervention study was performed on 68 men and women
with infertility referring to Milad Infertility Center in Mashhad in 2016–2017. Subjects were randomly
assigned to two methods of counseling. Participants completed written consent to participate in
the study. Infertile couples were included in the study if they met the inclusion criteria. The fertility
motivation questionnaire was completed by the participants at the beginning of the study before
the consultation and 2 weeks after the consultation. The collected data were analyzed by SPSS
Software Version 16.
RESULTS: According to the independent t‑test, there was no statistically significant difference
between the mean scores of positive fertility motivation in the two groups of face‑to‑face and telephone
counseling before the intervention. Independent t‑test showed that 2 weeks after the intervention,
there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of this variable (P = 0.283). There
was no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of positive fertility motivation in the
face‑to‑face counseling group before and after the intervention. Further, in the telephone counseling
group, there was no significant difference between the mean scores of positive fertility motivation
in the two stages before and after the intervention. According to the independent t‑test, there was a
statistically significant difference between the mean scores of negative fertility motivation in the two
groups of face‑to‑face and telephone counseling before the intervention (P = 0.025). However, this
test showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of this variable
2 weeks after the intervention.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that face‑to‑face and telephone counseling did not
have a significant effect on fertility motivations of infertile couples. In other words, the mean scores
of positive and negative fertility motivations before and after counseling remained unchanged in both
groups and the two groups did not differ in this regard. In other words, the issue of fertility motivation
in infertile women can be affected by different characteristics such as social, family, cultural, and
economic conditions of individuals. If infertile people do not make having a child a necessity in their
lives and cope with it more easily, no counseling can change their motivation. On the other hand,
if infertile women consider having a child as an essential part of their married life and the health of
their married life, counseling can have the greatest effect on them.
Keywords
