女性不孕症患者不孕相关心理应激的影响因素研究

发布时间：2018-05-30 04:01

本文选题：不孕症 + 女性　；参考：《中南大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的了解女性不孕症患者心理韧性、自我效能、应对方式和不孕相关心理应激水平的现状；探讨女性不孕症患者心理韧性、自我效能、应对方式与不孕相关心理应激的关系,为降低其不孕相关心理应激水平和干预策略的实施提供依据。方法选取2013年6月至2013年12月在中南大学湘雅医院、中南大学湘雅二医院和中南大学湘雅三医院3所三级甲等医院住院的女性不孕症患者共476例作为研究对象。采用自制的一般资料问卷、Connor-Davidson韧性量表(CD-RISC)、一般自我效能感量表(GSES)、简易应对方式问卷(SCSQ)和生育问题调查问卷(FPI)；采用Epidata3.0录入数据,使用SPSS18.0和AMOS18.0对数据进行统计学分析。统计学方法有统计描述、方差分析、Pearson相关分析、多元线性逐步回归分析、路径分析等。结果 1女性不孕症患者不孕相关心理应激得分情况：FPI总分为(159.02±27.28),社会压力维度得分(30.72±7.46),夫妻关系维度得分为(30.21±6.65),父母角色的需要维度得分为(43.09±8.67),拒绝没有孩子的生活方式维度得分为(33.51±8.25),性压力维度得分(21.49±7.93)。 2FPI单因素方差分析结果显示：文化程度、居住地、职业、家庭月收入、付费方式、是否独生女、家庭类型、与丈夫关系、生育压力主要来源方面女性不孕症患者的FPI,总分差异有统计学意义(P0.05)；多元线性回归分析显示：文化程度、居住地、家庭月收入、与丈夫关系进入FPI总分的回归方程。 3Pearson相关分析结果显示： (1) CD-RISC中坚韧维度与FPI中3个维度得分(社会压力、拒绝没有孩子的生活方式、性压力)呈负相关(r=-0.257；r=-0.168；r=-0.163,P0.01)；自强维度与FPI中4个维度得分(社会压力、夫妻关系、拒绝没有孩子的生活方式、性压力)均呈负相关(r=-0.331；r=-0.178；r=-0.155；r=-0.280,P0.01)；乐观维度与FPI中4个维度(社会压力维度、夫妻关系维度、拒绝没有孩子的生活方式维度、性压力维度)均呈负相关=-0.307；r=-0.163；r=-0.187；r=-0.206,P0.01)。自我效能平均分与FPI中3个维度(社会压力、夫妻关系、拒绝没有孩子的生活方式)呈负相关(r=-0.264；r=-0.104；r=-0.184,P0.01)。积极应对与FPI中3个维度(社会压力、拒绝没有孩子的生活方式、性压力)均呈负相关(r=-0.255；r=-0.177；r=-0.170,P0.01)；消极应对与FPI中4个维度(社会压力、夫妻关系、父母角色的需要、性压力)呈正相关(r=0.120；r=0.135；r=0.149；r=0.209, P0.01)。 (2)坚韧维度与自我效能、积极应对呈正相关(r=0.534；r=0.459P0.01),与消极应对呈负相关(r=-0.152,P0.01)；自强维度与自我效能、积极应对呈正相关(r=0.501；r=0.445,P0.01),与消极应对呈负相关(r=-0.180,P0.01)；乐观与自我效能、积极应对呈正相关(r=0.401；r=0.392,P0.01),与消极应对呈负相关(r=-0.113,P0.01)；自我效能与积极应对呈正相关(r=0.443,P0.01),与消极应对呈负相关(r=-0.151,P0.01)。 4路径分析显示：乐观对不孕相关心理应激的影响效应最大(总效应值为-0.210),既有直接负向效应(效应值为-0.175),又有间接负向效应(效应值为-0.035)；坚韧和自强维度对不孕相关心理应激均为间接负向效应(效应值分别为-0.057,-0.046)；自我效能对不孕相关心理应激为间接负向效应(效应值为-0.046)；积极应对方式对不孕相关心理应激有直接负向效应,(效应值为-0.175)；消极应对对不孕相关心理应激有直接正向作用(效应值为0.198)。结论 1文化程度、居住地、职业、家庭月收入、付费方式、是否独生女、家庭类型、与丈夫关系、生育压力主要来源是女性不孕症患者不孕相关心理应激的影响因素 2坚韧、自强、乐观三维度与不孕相关心理应激呈负相关,自我效能与不孕相关心理应激呈负相关,积极应对与不孕相关心理应激呈负相关,消极应对与不孕相关心理应激呈正相关。 3坚韧、自强、乐观对不孕相关心理应激有直接和间接负向影响,自我效能对不孕相关心理应激有间接负向影响,应对方式对不孕相关心理应激有直接影响。自我效能、积极应对和消极应对作为中介变量调节心理韧性和不孕相关心理应激的关系。
[Abstract]:objective
To understand the status of mental resilience, self efficacy, coping style and psychological stress related to infertility in female infertility, and to explore the relationship between psychological resilience, self efficacy, coping style and psychological stress related to infertility in women with infertility, and to provide a basis for reducing the psychological stress level and the implementation of intervention strategies for infertility related infertility.
Method
From June 2013 to December 2013, 476 cases of female infertility hospitalized in Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Central South University, Central South University and Xiangya Third Hospital of Central South University were studied. The self-made general data questionnaire, Connor-Davidson toughening scale (CD-RISC), and general self-efficacy scale (GSE) were used. S), the simple coping style questionnaire (SCSQ) and the birth problem questionnaire (FPI); the data were recorded by Epidata3.0, and the data were statistically analyzed using SPSS18.0 and AMOS18.0. Statistical description, variance analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, multivariate linear stepwise regression analysis, path analysis, etc.
Result
1 the score of psychological stress related to infertility in women with infertility: the total score of FPI was (159.02 + 27.28), the score of social stress dimension (30.72 + 7.46), the score of relationship dimension of husband and wife (30.21 + 6.65), the score of need dimension of parents' role (43.09 + 8.67), the score of refusing the life style dimension of no children was (33.51 + 8.25), and the dimension of sexual pressure was obtained. The score is (21.49 + 7.93).
2FPI single factor analysis of variance showed that: cultural degree, residence, occupation, family monthly income, payment mode, family type, relationship with husbands, and the main sources of reproductive pressure in women with FPI, the total score difference was statistically significant (P0.05); multiple linear regression analysis showed that cultural degree, residence, The regression equation of family monthly income and husband's relationship entered FPI total score.
The results of 3Pearson correlation analysis show that:
(1) the tenacity dimension of CD-RISC was negatively correlated with the score of 3 dimensions in FPI (social pressure, rejection of no child's lifestyle, sexual stress) (r=-0.257; r=-0.168; r=-0.163, P0.01); the self strength dimension was negatively correlated with the 4 dimensions in FPI (social pressure, husband and wife relationship, refusing to have children's lifestyle, sexual stress) (r=-0.331; r=) -0.178; r=-0.155; r=-0.280, P0.01); the 4 dimensions of optimism and FPI (social pressure dimension, marital relationship dimension, denial of life style dimension, sexual stress dimension) were negatively correlated =-0.307; r=-0.163; r=-0.187; r=-0.206, P0.01). The average score of self efficiency and FPI (social pressure, husband and wife relationship, refusal) No children's lifestyle was negatively correlated (r=-0.264; r=-0.104; r=-0.184, P0.01). Positive responses were negatively correlated with 3 dimensions in FPI (social pressure, refusal to have children's lifestyle, sexual stress) (r=-0.255; r=-0.177; r=-0.170, P0.01); negative coping and FPI 4 dimensions (social pressure, husband and wife relationship, parental role) There was a positive correlation between demand and sexual pressure (r=0.120; r=0.135; r=0.149; r=0.209, P0.01).
(2) the resilience dimension and self-efficacy, positive response (r=0.534; r=0.459P0.01), negative correlation (r=-0.152, P0.01); self strength dimension and self-efficacy, positive response (r=0.501; r=0.445, P0.01), negative correlation (r=-0.180, P0.01); optimism and self-efficacy, positive response is positively correlated (r=). 0.401; r=0.392, P0.01) was negatively correlated with negative coping (r=-0.113, P0.01); self efficacy was positively correlated with positive response (r=0.443, P0.01), and negatively correlated with negative coping (r=-0.151, P0.01).
The 4 path analysis showed that optimism had the greatest impact on psychological stress (total effect value -0.210), both direct negative effect (effect value -0.175) and indirect negative effect (effect value -0.035), and the psychological stress of tenacity and self strength dimension to infertility was indirect negative effect (effect value was -0.057, -0.046, respectively). The effect of self efficacy on infertility related psychological stress was indirect negative effect (effect value -0.046); positive coping style had direct negative effect on infertility related psychological stress, (effect value was -0.175); negative coping had direct positive effect on sterility related psychological stress (the effect value was 0.198).
conclusion
1 cultural degree, residence, occupation, family monthly income, payment method, single child, family type, relationship with husbands, and the main source of reproductive pressure are the factors affecting psychological stress related to infertility in women's infertility.
2 tenacity, self strength, optimism and optimism were negatively correlated with psychological stress related to infertility, self efficacy was negatively correlated with psychological stress related to infertility, positive coping with psychological stress related to infertility was negatively correlated, negative coping was positively correlated with psychological stress related to infertility.
3 tenacity, self-improvement and optimism have direct and indirect negative effects on psychological stress related to infertility, self efficacy has indirect negative influence on infertility related psychological stress, coping style has direct influence on psychological stress related to infertility. Self efficacy, positive coping and negative coping as mediator variables regulate psychological resilience and infertility related psychological stress. The relationship.
【学位授予单位】：中南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：R473.71

【参考文献】