Advertisement

BMC Research Notes

, 12:507 | Cite as

The Quality of Marriage Index (QMI): a validation study in infertile patients

  • Saman Maroufizadeh
  • Amir Almasi-Hashiani
  • Payam Amini
  • Mahdi Sepidarkish
  • Reza Omani-SamaniEmail author
Open Access
Research note
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Infertility can have a considerable effect on a person’s marital satisfaction. The Quality of Marriage Index (QMI) is a self-report inventory to measure global perceptions of marital satisfaction. The current study examined the reliability and validity of the Persian language version of QMI in a sample of infertile patients.

Results

The mean QMI total score was 36.54 ± 6.87. The internal consistency of the scale was good, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.922. All inter-item correlations and item-total correlations were also in acceptable range. The confirmatory factor analysis results provided evidence for unidimensionality of the scale (χ2/df = 3.10; GFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.99; NFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.091 and SRMR = 0.020). The convergent validity of the QMI was demonstrated via significant correlations with measures of the Relationship Assessment Scale, Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale, and Couples Satisfaction Index-4 Item. These correlations also tended to be larger than correlations with measures of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Perceived Stress Scale-4 Item. Among demographic/fertility variables, only infertility duration was negatively correlated to QMI scores. In sum, the QMI is a reliable and valid brief inventory for measuring overall marital satisfaction in infertile patients.

Trial registration This was a cross-sectional study (NOT clinical trial); thus, the trail registration number is not required for the present study

Keywords

Quality of Marriage Index Marital satisfaction Reliability Validity Infertility 

Abbreviations

QMI

Quality of Marriage Index

KMSS

Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale

RAS

Relationship Assessment Scale

CSI-4

Couples Satisfaction Index-4 Item

HADS

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

PSS-4

Perceived Stress Scale-4 Item

CFA

confirmatory factor analysis

GFI

goodness of fit index

CFI

compara-tive fit index

NFI

normed fit index

RMSEA

root mean square error of approximation

SRMR

standardized root mean square residual

Introduction

Relationship satisfaction is the amount of a person’s feeling about his/her intimate relationship [1]. As a part of relationship satisfaction assessment, the quality of marriage has been introduced as a general evaluation of marriage in which factors such as various features of marriage, attitudes, behaviors and communication patterns are utilized [2, 3]. Some relationship characteristics such as the amount of satisfaction with the relationship, the type of attitudes towards the partner, and low levels of aggression and hostile can be used to investigate the quality of marriage [3, 4]. It has been shown that quality of marriage is associated with health problems and well-being, the feeling of happiness, economic factors, psychological complications, and general aspects of quality of life [4, 5, 6, 7]. However, the assessment of marital quality among infertile patients is along with several complications. Infertility, which is defined as a failure to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse, is followed by numerous psychological and mental health problems including depression, stress, anxiety, sexual dysfunction, and poor marital satisfaction, well-being, and quality of life [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].

A number of self-report tools have been introduced and used to evaluate the marital quality such as Marital Adjustment Test (MAT), Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS), Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI), Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), Quality Marriage Index (QMI) [14]. The QMI which was developed by Norton [15], is a six-item measure of marital satisfaction. This instrument has been used among general populations [16, 17], cardiovascular [18], cancer [19], fertile couples [20], military veterans [21], and many of other samples. This scale is appropriate to check how agreement contributes in the relationship and similarity of attitudes within the couples [15]. Moreover, the brevity of the instrument in comparison to other tools can be a considerable advantage so that large populations can be assessed in a short period of time. Although, there is a controversy in reporting the amount of the QMI reliability, a meta-analysis study exposed an average strong reliability of 0.94 across several studies [22]. Moreover, QMI scores among women are more reliable than in men [22]. It has been argued that although the QMI has strong intrinsic psychometric properties and performs better for longer term relationships [22].

Regarding the psychological problems among infertile couples and the necessity of their marital quality assessment, this study aims to examine the reliability and validity of the QMI among a sample of infertile patients.

Main text

Methods

Participants and study design

In this cross-sectional study, infertile patients referring to infertility treatment center of Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran were invited to take part in the study. The data were collected via convenience sampling method from February to May 2017. Patients had to meet the following criteria to be eligible for the study: (1) experiencing infertility problems; (2) in a heterosexual marriage; (3) 18 years or older; (3) willingness to participate in the research; (4) ability to read, and write in Persian. In total, 254 infertile patients agreed to take part and filled out the questionnaires completely.

Measures

Quality of Marriage Index (QMI)

The QMI is a brief self-report instrument that measures marital quality [15]. The scale consists of 6 positively worded items that are rated on a 10-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 10 for the last item, and on 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 7 for the other five items. Total scores range from 6 to 45, with higher scores reflecting better marital quality.

Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS)

The RAS is a brief, 7-item self-report instrument that measures relationship satisfaction [1]. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Total scores range from 7 to 35, with higher scores reflecting better relationship satisfaction. The Persian language version of RAS has been validated among infertile patients [23]. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the RAS was 0.828.

Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS)

The KMMS is a brief, 3-item self-report instrument that measures marital satisfaction [24]. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). Total scores range from 3 to 21, with higher scores reflecting greater marital satisfaction. The Persian language version of KMSS has been validated among infertile patients [25]. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the KMSS was 0.901.

The 4-Item Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-4)

The CSI-4 is a widely used self-report instrument derived from the original 32 item CSI (CSI-32) that measures relationship satisfaction [16]. The scale consists of four positively worded items that are rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (extremely unhappy) to 6 (perfect) for the first item, and on 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (not at all true) to 5 (all of the time) for the other three items. Total scores range from 0 to 21, with higher scores reflecting better relationship satisfaction. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the CSI-4 was 0.846.

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)

The HADS is a commonly used self-report instrument consisting 14 items designed to measure both anxiety (HADS-A, 7 items) and depression (HADS-D, 7 items) [26]. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3. Both subscale scores range from 0 to 21, with higher scores reflecting greater anxiety and depression. The Persian language version of HADS has been validated among infertile patients and widely used in this population [8, 9]. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the HADS-A and HADS-D were 0.842 and 0.721, respectively.

Perceived Stress Scale-4 Item (PSS-4)

The PSS-4 is a widely used self-report instrument derived from the original 14 item PSS (PSS-14) that measures “the degree to which situations in one’s life over the last month are appraised as unpredictable, uncontrollable and overloading” [27]. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Total scores range from 0 to 16, with higher scores reflecting greater stress [27]. The Persian language version of PSS has been validated among infertile patients and adults with asthma [28, 29]. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the PSS-4 was 0.555.

Statistical analysis

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with maximum likelihood estimation method, was performed in order to evaluate the unidimensionality of QMI. The fit of the model was assessed using several goodness-of-fit indices including the Chi square/degree of freedom (χ2/df), the goodness of fit index (GFI), the compara-tive fit index (CFI), the normed fit index (NFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Values of χ2/df < 5, GFI, CFI, and NFI > 0.90, and RMSEA and SRMR < 0.08 indicate acceptable fit to the data [30, 31, 32, 33]. Cronbach’s alpha, inter-item correlation, and corrected-item total correlation were used to examine the internal consistency of the scale. To examine the convergent validity of the QMI, we calculated Pearson correlations between the QMI scores and the measures of the KMSS, RAS, CSI-4, HADS, and PSS-4. In addition, Pearson correlation coefficient, independent t test and one-way ANOVA were used to examine the relationship between QMI scores and demographic/fertility variables.

All statistical analyses were done with SPSS for windows, version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and LISREL 8.80 (Scientific Software International, Inc., Lincolnwood, IL, USA).

Results

Participant characteristics

Patients had mean age of 32.09 years (SD = 6.55) and mean infertility duration of 4.85 years (SD = 3.73). Of the patients, 55.5% were females, 36.2% were university-educated, and 50.4% underwent first ART treatment. Infertility was due to a male or female factor in 35.8 and 21.7% of patients, respectively. In 19.3%, both male and female factors were observed, and 23.2% of the patients had unexplained infertility.

Descriptive statistics and internal consistency of the QMI

Item wording, descriptive statistics, and reliability analysis of the QMI are given in Table 1. The mean QMI total score was 36.54 ± 6.87 (range 14–45). The internal consistency of the QMI was good, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.922. As seen in Table 2, Cronbach’s alpha did not significantly increase as a consequence of an item deletion. The corrected item-total correlations and the inter-item correlations ranged 0.766–0.858, and 0.618–0.796, respectively, which were in acceptable range.
Table 1

Items wording and descriptive statistics, and internal consistency of the QMI

  

Mean

SD

Corrected item total correlation

Alpha if item deleted

Cronbach’s alpha

1

We have a good marriage

5.67

1.13

0.815

0.906

 

2

My relationship with my partner is very stable

5.57

1.17

0.782

0.909

 

3

Our marriage is strong

5.67

1.24

0.858

0.899

 

4

My relationship with my partner makes me happy

5.92

1.19

0.766

0.911

 

5

I really feel like part of a team with my partner

5.67

1.33

0.810

0.904

 

6

The degree of happiness, everything considered, in our marriage is

8.04

1.89

0.772

0.924

 
 

QMI total score

36.54

6.87

  

0.922

SD standard deviation

Table 2

Relationship of QMI scores with demographic/fertility characteristics in infertile patients

 

Mean ± SD or r

P

Age (years)

− 0.119

0.057

Duration of infertility (years)

− 0.158

0.012

Sex

 

0.607

 Male

36.79 ± 7.23

 

 Female

36.34 ± 6.60

 

Educational level

 

0.378

 Primary

35.48 ± 7.43

 

 Secondary

36.96 ± 7.20

 

 University

36.78 ± 6.08

 

Cause of infertility

 

0.239

 Male factor

35.45 ± 7.22

 

 Female factor

36.87 ± 6.98

 

 Both

37.82 ± 6.78

 

 Unexplained

36.85 ± 6.19

 

Failure of previous treatment

 

0.068

 No (First treatment)

37.32 ± 6.65

 

 Yes

35.75 ± 7.03

 

History of abortion

 

0.904

 No

36.51 ± 6.89

 

 Yes

36.63 ± 6.87

 

SD standard deviation; r correlation coefficients

Convergent Validity

As expected, there were strong correlations between QMI and measures of KMSS (r = 0.696), RAS (r = 0.700), and CSI-4 (r = 0.754). The QMI scores were also correlated with measures of HADS-A (r = − 0.242), HADS-D (r = − 0.406), and PSS-4 (r = − 0.376). According to these correlation coefficients, the correlations of QMI with measures of marital satisfaction (i.e., KMSS, RAS and CSI-4) were higher than the correlations with measures of anxiety, depression, and stress (i.e., HADS-A, HADS-D and PSS-4).

Confirmatory factor analysis

To test the unidimensionality of the QMI, the CFA was carried out. According to the goodness of fit indices, the fitness of the model was not good (χ2/df = 5.15; GFI = 0.94; CFI = 0.98; NFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.128 and SRMR = 0.028). Examination of the modification indices recommended allowing covariance between Item 2 and Item 3 as well as between Item 3 and Item 4 (Fig. 1). A better fit was obtained after allowing for these covariances (χ2/df = 3.10; GFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.99; NFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.091 and SRMR = 0.020). All factor loadings were significant and large (> 0.7, see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Unidimensional structure of the QMI in a sample of infertile patients

Relationship of the QMI scores with demographic characteristics

As presented in Table 2, significant but low negative correlation was obtained between QMI scores and infertility duration (r = − 0.158, P = 0.012). Patients who had failure in previous treatment obtained lower QMI scores compared to patients undergoing first treatment, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.068). Age, Sex, level of education, cause of infertility, and history of abortion were not related to QMI scores.

Discussion

This study examined the psychometric characteristics of the QMI in a sample of infertile patients in Iran. The QMI demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.922), and alpha value did not increase when an item was deleted. All inter-item correlations and corrected item-total correlations were also within acceptable range, indicating good internal consistency. These findings are in line with what was reported in previous studies [22, 34]. The unidimensional structure of the QMI that we found in this study is consistent with Norton [15] theoretical conceptualization of the QMI. In a study conducted by Nazarinia and Schumm [35] among expectant and new Canadian mothers, factor analysis showed moderate support for unidimensional structure for a slightly modified version of QMI. Unfortunately, the literature in which this scale has been psychometrically studied is limited.

Evidence of convergent validity of the QMI was demonstrated by a pattern of correlations with the relevant measures of marital satisfaction and measures of anxiety, depression and stress that was in line with theoretical predictions. These results are in line with the previous studies which reported that the QMI scores were considerably related to measures of psychological distress and other instruments for assessing marital satisfaction and quality [16, 36]. The findings also suggested that the convergent validity was stronger between the QMI and measures of marital satisfaction compared to the relationship with measures of anxiety, depression, and stress.

Consistent with previous studies [23, 25], infertility duration was significantly related to QMI scores. In addition, similar findings have been reported in other studies on measures of quality of life [37], anxiety, and depression [9, 23, 38]. Other demographic variables were not statistically related to QMI scores.

In summary, the QMI is a reliable and valid tool for measuring overall marital satisfaction in infertile patients. This inventory is a short and easy to use tool and can be administered in several minutes providing an economic tool for both research and clinical applications.

Limitations

There are several limitations of the study that should be noted. First, the present study was a single-center research, thus, the generalization of the results may be limited. Second, the cross-sectional design limits our ability to make causal inferences between QMI scores and demographic and infertility characteristics. Third, the test–retest reliability of the QMI was not done among respondents.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the infertile patients who participated in this research and to the Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran for cooperation in data acquisition.

Authors’ contributions

SM: Conception and design; Collection and assembly of data; Analysis and interpretation of the data; Drafting of the article. ROS and AAH: Conception and design; Interpretation of the data; Drafting of the article. PA and MS: Conception and design; Analysis of the data; Drafting of the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from any agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Ethics Committee of Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran, approved this study. Agreement to participate and a signed consent form were obtained from all infertile patients before data collection.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Hendrick SS. A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. J Marriage Fam. 1988;1:93–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fincham FD, Bradbury TN. The assessment of marital quality: a reevaluation. J Marriage Fam. 1987;1:797–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slatcher RB. Marital functioning and physical health: implications for social and personality psychology. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2010;4(7):455–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carr D, Freedman VA, Cornman JC, Schwarz N. Happy marriage, happy life? Marital quality and subjective well-being in later life. J Marriage Fam. 2014;76(5):930–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hardie JH, Lucas A. Economic factors and relationship quality among young couples: comparing cohabitation and marriage. J Marriage Fam. 2010;72(5):1141–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harper A, Dyches TT, Harper J, Roper SO, South M. Respite care, marital quality, and stress in parents of children with autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013;43(11):2604–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu H, Waite L. Bad marriage, broken heart? Age and gender differences in the link between marital quality and cardiovascular risks among older adults. J Health Soc Behav. 2014;55(4):403–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maroufizadeh S, Ghaheri A, Amini P, Samani RO. Psychometric properties of the fertility quality of life instrument in infertile Iranian women. Int J Fertil Steril. 2017;10(4):371–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Omani Samani R, Maroufizadeh S, Navid B, Amini P. Locus of control, anxiety, and depression in infertile patients. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22(1):44–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luk BH, Loke AY. The impact of infertility on the psychological well-being, marital relationships, sexual relationships, and quality of life of couples: a systematic review. J Sex Marital Ther. 2015;41(6):610–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gana K, Jakubowska S. Relationship between infertility-related stress and emotional distress and marital satisfaction. J Health Psychol. 2016;21(6):1043–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maroufizadeh S, Ghaheri A, Samani RO, Ezabadi Z. Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) in Iranian infertile women. Int J Reprod BioMed. 2016;14(1):57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maroufizadeh S, Omani-Samani R, Bagheri-Lankarani N, Almasi-Hashiani A, Amini P. Factors associated with poor well-being of infertile people: a cross-sectional study. Middle East Fert Soc J. 2018;23(4):468–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reynolds J, Houlston C, Coleman L. Understanding relationship quality. London: Oneplus One; 2014.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norton R. Measuring marital quality: a critical look at the dependent variable. J Marriage Fam. 1983;1:141–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Funk JL, Rogge RD. Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. J Fam Psychol. 2007;21(4):572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morrill MI, Hines DA, Mahmood S, Cordova JV. Pathways between marriage and parenting for wives and husbands: the role of coparenting. Fam Process. 2010;49(1):59–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McPherson CJ, Wilson KG, Chyurlia L, Leclerc C. The caregiving relationship and quality of life among partners of stroke survivors: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9(1):29.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zimmermann T, Scott JL, Heinrichs N. Individual and dyadic predictors of body image in women with breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2010;19(10):1061–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nishimura A, Fujita Y, Katsuta M, Ishihara A, Ohashi K. Paternal postnatal depression in Japan: an investigation of correlated factors including relationship with a partner. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):128.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doss BD, Rowe LS, Morrison KR, Libet J, Birchler GR, Madsen JW, McQuaid JR. Couple therapy for military veterans: overall effectiveness and predictors of response. Behav Ther. 2012;43(1):216–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graham JM, Diebels KJ, Barnow ZB. The reliability of relationship satisfaction: a reliability generalization meta-analysis. J Fam Psychol. 2011;25(1):39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Omani-Samani R, Ghaheri A, Navid B, Sepidarkish M, Maroufizadeh S. Prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder and its related factors among infertile patients in Iran: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):129.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schumm WR, Nichols C, Schectman K, Grigsby CC. Characteristics of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychol Rep. 1983;53(2):567–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Omani-Samani R, Maroufizadeh S, Ghaheri A, Amini P, Navid B. Reliability and validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) in infertile people. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2018;23(2):154–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2017.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maroufizadeh S, Zareiyan A, Sigari N. Reliability and validity of Persian version of perceived stress scale (PSS-10) in adults with asthma. Arch Iran Med. 2014;17(5):361–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maroufizadeh S, Foroudifard F, Navid B, Ezabadi Z, Sobati B, Omani-Samani R. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) in women experiencing infertility: a reliability and validity study. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2018;23(4):456–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2018.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McDonald RP. Ho M-HR: principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(1):64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Woods SB, Priest JB, Denton WH. A preliminary investigation of a telephone administration of the Quality of Marriage Index. J Marital Fam Ther. 2013;39(2):261–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nazarinia RR, Schumm WR, White JM. Dimensionality and reliability of a modified version of Norton’s 1983 Quality Marriage Index among expectant and new Canadian mothers. Psychol Rep. 2009;104(2):379–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heyman RE, Sayers SL, Bellack AS. Global marital satisfaction versus marital adjustment: an empirical comparison of three measures. J Fam Psychol. 1994;8(4):432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Karabulut A, Özkan S, Oğuz N. Predictors of fertility quality of life (FertiQoL) in infertile women: analysis of confounding factors. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):193–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ramezanzadeh F, Aghssa MM, Abedinia N, Zayeri F, Khanafshar N, Shariat M, Jafarabadi M. A survey of relationship between anxiety, depression and duration of infertility. BMC Womens Health. 2004;4(1):9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saman Maroufizadeh
    • 1
  • Amir Almasi-Hashiani
    • 2
  • Payam Amini
    • 3
  • Mahdi Sepidarkish
    • 4
  • Reza Omani-Samani
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Nursing and MidwiferyGuilan University of Medical SciencesRashtIran
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology, School of HealthArak University of Medical SciencesArakIran
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public HealthAhvaz Jundishapur University of Medical SciencesAhvazIran
  4. 4.Department of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyBabol University of Medical SciencesBabolIran
  5. 5.Department of Medical Ethics and Law, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive BiomedicineACECRTehranIran

Personalised recommendations