Does individual versus couple interview affect the reporting of depression, anxiety, social support and marital relationship by infertile women?

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Predictive Medicine and Public Health, University of Porto Medical School, Porto, Portugal; Institute of Public Health, University of Porto (ISPUP), Porto, Portugal; Department of Sociology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Background Most studies in reproductive epidemiology are conducted using individual interviews with women, neglecting the focus on the couple. Guidelines on the most appropriate mode of enquiry when studying In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) couples are still absent and there is no evidence on how it might affect results. Objectives To assess the influence of modes of enquiry in IVF studies, evaluating differences in the prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms, in the perceived social support and in marital relationship between women who participated in the study alone and those who participated in couples. Methods Within an ongoing descriptive study, 133 couples and 58 women were interviewed at Hospital de Sa˜o Joa˜o (Porto, Portugal), between August 2011 and March 2012, and further compared for several characteristics. After blood sample collection aiming to diagnose pregnancy, couples or women (if alone) were invited to answer a structured questionnaire administered by trained interviewers and a self-administered questionnaire to gather data on sociodemographics, anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Scale) and depression symptoms (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale), perceived social support (The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support) and quality of marital relationship (The Relationship Questionnaire). Proportions were compared using Chi-Square test and Fisher’s Exact test, as appropriate. Mean differences were compared by the Independent Samples T Test or the Mann–Whitney Test, according to data distribution. Results No statistically significant differences were found between women who participated individually and women who participated in couples regarding their sociodemographic characteristics. Statistically significant differences were found in anxiety symptoms: women interviewed in couples presented higher total score of anxiety (mean, ±SD = 43.84, 8.34) than women interviewed individually (mean, ±SD 40.43, 9.38; p = 0.03). Although not statistically significant, depression symptoms were higher in couples versus individually interviewed women (respectively, mean, ±SD = 9.71, 4.47; mean, ±SD = 9.53, 4.49; p = 0.80). Perceived social support was lower among women interviewed in couple (median (Q25-Q75), 75 (67.50–80.50)) versus individually (median (Q25-Q75), 76 (69–81); p = 0.79). Marital relationship was evaluated as being better among women interviewed in couples (median (Q25-Q75), 21 (19–23)) than individually (median (Q25-Q75), 20 (18.75–22.25); p = 0.40). Conclusion Data obtained indicate that individual versus couple interviews did not affect the reporting of depression symptoms, social support and marital relationship. However, differences found in anxiety symptoms should be further analyzed. Other outcomes need to be evaluated, comparing individual versus couple interviews. This might provide information to create evidence-based guidelines for conducting epidemiological research on IVF couples.