AI Insight
This study examined 44 couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and found that personal optimism and work-life balance were each independently associated with infertility self-efficacy (the perceived ability to cope with treatment demands) in both partners. For male partners specifically, optimism was linked to infertility self-efficacy indirectly through work-life balance, though direct comparison between men and women did not reach statistical significance. Both personal optimism and work-life balance showed positive relationships with couples' confidence in managing infertility treatment.
Why it matters
The findings suggest that psychosocial support during IVF treatment could benefit from addressing not only fertility-specific concerns but also broader factors like optimism and work-life balance. This may inform more comprehensive clinical approaches to supporting couples through the psychological challenges of fertility treatment.
Understand the Science
IntroductionInfertility treatment is a prolonged medical and psychosocial stressor, and infertility self-efficacy reflects individuals’ perceived capacity to cope with treatment demands. Research has rarely examined how personal and work–nonwork resources are jointly associated with infertility-specific coping beliefs within couples. Drawing on Conservation of Resources theory, this study examined personal optimism (PO), perceived work–life balance (WLB), and infertility self-efficacy (ISE) among women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and their male partners, including an indirect association from PO to ISE through WLB and its possible difference between partners.MethodsThe analysis included 44 employed heterosexual couples (N = 88) undergoing IVF. Both partners independently completed measures of PO, WLB, and ISE. Partner-specific indirect-effect models were estimated separately for women and men, adjusting for the other partner’s corresponding scores. Between-partner contrasts in the PO–WLB and indirect associations were tested in a simultaneous distinguishable-dyad path model using couple-level bootstrap resampling. Given the cross-sectional design, indirect effects were interpreted as statistical associations rather than evidence of causal mediation.ResultsAmong women, PO and WLB were each positively associated with ISE. However, PO was not significantly associated with WLB, and the indirect association between PO and ISE through WLB was not statistically significant. Among men, PO was positively associated with WLB, and both PO and WLB were positively associated with ISE. In addition, a significant positive indirect association between PO and ISE through WLB was observed among men. A direct dyadic contrast showed a stronger PO–WLB association among men than among women, although the confidence interval narrowly excluded zero. However, the direct comparison of the partner-specific indirect associations did not indicate a statistically significant difference between women and men.ConclusionPO and WLB were independently associated with ISE in both partners. Among men, but not women, a significant indirect association between PO and ISE through WLB was observed, although the direct comparison of the partner-specific indirect associations was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that psychosocial care during IVF may benefit from attention to ISE, PO, and WLB. Longitudinal and intervention research is needed before clinical recommendations can be drawn.