Latent Profile Analysis of Stigma in Infertile Women and Influencing Factors

doi:10.12280/gjszjk.20240569

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: Based on the latent profile analysis, to understand the categorical characteristics of stigma in infertile women and the influencing factors of stigma in those infertile women. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted, using convenience sampling to select 345 infertile women who visited the Reproductive Medicine Center of The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from April 2020 to June 2020. The General Information Survey, Female Infertility Stigma Scale (ISS), and Herth Hope Index (HHI) were used for the evaluation of stigma. Results: Latent profile analysis showed that the characteristics of stigma in infertile women were divided into three potential categories: "low stigma and low family stigma group" 150 cases (43.48%), "middle stigma group" 140 cases (40.58%), and "high stigma and high social stigma group" 55 cases (15.94%). There were significant differences in the stigma among different categories of infertile women in terms of educational level, occupation, marital history, place of residence, and relationship with their husbands (all P<0.05). Using the "low stigma and low family stigma group" as a reference, high school/vocational education level (OR=2.484, P=0.048) is a risk factor for the "middle stigma group", while being in a first marriage (OR=0.268, P=0.006) is a protective factor for the "middle stigma group". Living in rural towns (OR=2.764, P=0.046) is a risk factor for the "high stigma and high social stigma group", whereas having a good relationship with the husband (OR=0.382, P=0.034) and having a high total HHI score (OR=0.582, P=0.010) are two protective factors for the "high stigma and high social stigma group". Using the "middle stigma group" as a reference, having a high total HHI score (OR=0.531, P=0.002) is a protective factor for the "high stigma and high social stigma group". Conclusions: Clarifying the potential categories of stigma among infertile women can help medical staff take intervention measures targeting the influencing factors to reduce their feeling of stigma, and improve their psychological health.

Key words: Infertility, female, Hope, Root cause analysis, Stigma, Latent profile analysis

CHEN Chang-e, LUO Gui-ying, WANG Chun-yan, WANG Dan-ni, WANG Jie-yu. Latent Profile Analysis of Stigma in Infertile Women and Influencing Factors[J]. Journal of International Reproductive Health/Family Planning, 2025, 44(4): 272-277.

Figures/Tables 6

References 24

[1]	Qiao J, Wang Y, Li X, et al. A Lancet Commission on 70 years of women's reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health in China[J]. Lancet, 2021, 397(10293):2497-2536. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32708-2. pmid: 34043953
[2]	马丹丹, 白彩锋, 毛芳香, 等. 不孕症患者情绪调节策略与抑郁和焦虑症状的关系[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2023, 37(8):662-671. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2023.08.004.
[3]	吴梅利洋, 蒋灵俊, 曾铁英, 等. 不孕不育患者心理痛苦研究进展[J]. 护理学杂志, 2024, 39(16):120-124. doi: 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2024.16.120.
[4]	姜璎钊, 刘均娥, 韩静. 女性不孕症患者病耻感水平及影响因素的调查研究[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2018, 53(6):698-703. doi:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2018.06.011.
[5]	易丽丽. 年轻肺癌患者希望水平、应对方式与病耻感的关系研究[D]. 长沙: 中南大学, 2023.
[6]	温忠麟, 谢晋艳, 王惠惠. 潜在类别模型的原理、步骤及程序[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(1):1-15. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2023.01.001.
[7]	李峥, 刘宇. 护理学研究方法[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2012.
[8]	Fu B, Qin N, Cheng L, et al. Development and validation of an Infertility Stigma Scale for Chinese women[J]. J Psychosom Res, 2015, 79(1):69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.11.014. pmid: 25499618
[9]	赵海平, 王健. 血液透析患者的社会支持和希望[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2000, 35(5):306-308.
[10]	Taebi M, Kariman N, Montazeri A, et al. Infertility Stigma: A Qualitative Study on Feelings and Experiences of Infertile Women[J]. Int J Fertil Steril, 2021, 15(3):189-196. doi: 10.22074/IJFS.2021.139093.1039. pmid: 34155865
[11]	齐建, 王素明, 王志中. 女性不孕中的个体体验、社会境遇与医学干预分析[J]. 医学与哲学, 2023, 44(21):65-69,76. doi: 10.12014/j.issn.1002-0772.2023.21.14.
[12]	赵晴, 岳立萍, 胡俊平, 等. 不孕症患者社交回避及苦恼现状及其影响因素分析[J]. 军事护理, 2023, 40(6):65-68. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2097-1826.2023.06.016.
[13]	庄婷, 王清, 施金凤, 等. 育龄期不孕症女性病耻感的影响因素调查及其与应对方式的相关性分析[J]. 中国性科学, 2025, 34(3):50-53. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1993.2025.03.011.
[14]	史莉, 张萌, 罗丽燕, 等. 供精人工授精女性患者病耻感与婚姻调试现状的相关性[J]. 中华男科学杂志, 2021, 27(12):1081-1086. doi: 10.13263/j.cnki.nja.2021.12.005.
[15]	奚慧琴, 田梅梅, 谢雷, 等. 不孕(育)症夫妻二元应对异质性研究及相关因素分析[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2024, 44(6):746-754. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2024.06.010.
[16]	袁蓉敬, 路娜, 赵金珠, 等. 女性不孕症患者病耻感相关因素的Meta分析[J]. 中国性科学, 2022, 31(3):157-160. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1993.2022.03.039.
[17]	Jing X, Gu W, Xu X, et al. Stigma predicting fertility quality of life among Chinese infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer[J]. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol, 2022, 43(1):35-41. doi: 10.1080/0167482X.2020.1778665.
[18]	Kaya Z, Oskay U. Stigma, hopelessness and coping experiences of Turkish women with infertility[J]. J Reprod Infant Psychol, 2020, 38(5):485-496. doi: 10.1080/02646838.2019.1650904.
[19]	谭鸿霞, 文娟, 宋悦龄, 等. 女性不孕症病人希望水平及影响因素的调查研究[J]. 全科护理, 2022, 20(13):1840-1844. doi: 10.12104/j.issn.1674-4748.2022.13.030.
[20]	卢红, 王安, 施燕娟, 等. 希望水平在肺癌患者胸腔镜手术创伤后成长和生活质量间的中介效应[J]. 中华全科医学, 2024, 22(9):1605-1608. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003693.
[21]	向婷婷, 蒋小剑, 李梅枝, 等. 希望水平在精神分裂症患者病耻感及社会功能缺陷间的中介作用[J]. 中华护理教育, 2022, 19(7):657-661. doi: 10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2022.07.015.
[22]	葛春霞, 周小燕, 洪小丽, 等. 基于希望理论的团体干预对江苏省某医院中青年脑卒中患者病耻感和负面情绪的影响[J]. 医学与社会, 2022, 35(8):127-131,144. doi: 10.13723/j.yxysh.2022.08.024.
[23]	贾冬梅. 供精人工授精夫妇病耻感与生育压力的关系及沟通模式的中介作用:基于主客体互倚中介模型[D]. 济南: 山东大学, 2022.
[24]	陈前, 王荣, 胡国梁, 等. 重复辅助生殖助孕女性希望水平关联因素分析[J]. 中国计划生育学杂志, 2024, 32(9):1977-1982. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-8189.2024.09.002.

项目	得分（分）	女性ISS 总分	自我贬损维度	社会退缩维度	周围人群的羞辱维度	家庭成员的羞辱维度	HHI 总分	积极态度维度	人际支持维度	积极行动维度
女性ISS总分	53.41±19.18	1
自我贬损维度	13.76±6.05	0.865**	1
社会退缩维度	13.37±5.08	0.772**	0.590**	1
周围人群的羞辱维度	15.87±6.99	0.907**	0.699**	0.582**	1
家庭成员的羞辱维度	10.41±4.62	0.797**	0.577**	0.453**	0.696**	1
HHI总分	37.42±3.92	-0.143*	-0.103	-0.110	-0.147*	-0.119	1
积极态度维度	12.11±1.32	-0.103	-0.058	-0.081	-0.133*	-0.061	0.815**	1
人际支持维度	13.19±1.65	-0.232**	-0.196**	-0.176**	-0.210**	-0.200**	0.906**	0.627**	1
积极行动维度	12.10±1.55	-0.027	-0.002	-0.022	-0.033	-0.035	0.867**	0.538**	0.688**	1

项目	得分（分）	女性ISS 总分	自我贬损维度	社会退缩维度	周围人群的羞辱维度	家庭成员的羞辱维度	HHI 总分	积极态度维度	人际支持维度	积极行动维度
女性ISS总分	53.41±19.18	1
自我贬损维度	13.76±6.05	0.865**	1
社会退缩维度	13.37±5.08	0.772**	0.590**	1
周围人群的羞辱维度	15.87±6.99	0.907**	0.699**	0.582**	1
家庭成员的羞辱维度	10.41±4.62	0.797**	0.577**	0.453**	0.696**	1
HHI总分	37.42±3.92	-0.143*	-0.103	-0.110	-0.147*	-0.119	1
积极态度维度	12.11±1.32	-0.103	-0.058	-0.081	-0.133*	-0.061	0.815**	1
人际支持维度	13.19±1.65	-0.232**	-0.196**	-0.176**	-0.210**	-0.200**	0.906**	0.627**	1
积极行动维度	12.10±1.55	-0.027	-0.002	-0.022	-0.033	-0.035	0.867**	0.538**	0.688**	1

模型	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	LMR	BLRT	类别概率
1	8 689.802	8 720.551	8 695.172	—	—	—	—
2	8 228.933	8 278.899	8 237.660	0.849	0.015	<0.001	0.734/0.265
3	8 008.749	8 077.933	8 020.832	0.880	<0.001	<0.001	0.437/0.405/0.159
4	7 897.858	7 986.259	7 913.297	0.759	0.139	<0.001	0.464/0.142/0.053/0.339

模型	AIC	BIC	aBIC	Entropy	LMR	BLRT	类别概率
1	8 689.802	8 720.551	8 695.172	—	—	—	—
2	8 228.933	8 278.899	8 237.660	0.849	0.015	<0.001	0.734/0.265
3	8 008.749	8 077.933	8 020.832	0.880	<0.001	<0.001	0.437/0.405/0.159
4	7 897.858	7 986.259	7 913.297	0.759	0.139	<0.001	0.464/0.142/0.053/0.339

组别	n	女性ISS总分	自我贬损维度	社会退缩维度	周围人群的羞辱维度	家庭成员的羞辱维度
低病耻低家庭成员羞辱组	150	36.23±7.13	9.42±3.11	10.16±4.55	9.93±1.93	6.71±1.61
中病耻组	140	58.89±6.44	14.60±3.47	14.61±3.47	17.66±3.60	12.01±3.24
高病耻高周围人群羞辱组	55	86.34±9.74	23.44±4.65	18.98±3.41	27.51±4.89	16.41±4.51
F		1 000.763	304.933	110.761	618.480	255.135
P		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
组别	n	HHI总分	积极态度维度	人际支持维度	积极行动维度
低病耻低家庭成员羞辱组	150	38.35±3.50	12.29±1.26	13.70±1.54	12.36±1.39
中病耻组	140	36.96±3.58	12.10±1.32	12.99±1.47	11.86±1.33
高病耻高周围人群羞辱组	55	36.02±5.23	11.65±1.42	12.34±2.00	12.10±1.55
F		6.443	3.238	11.92	2.802
P		0.002	0.041	<0.001	0.063