Skip to main content
Download PDF

Prevalence of depression in infertile men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Public Health volume 23, Article number: 1972 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Generally, infertile men hide their depression, which can threaten their health and lower their quality of life. Given the role of depression and its impact on people's health, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the prevalence of depression in infertile men.

Methods

This research is a systematic review and meta-analysis based on preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Using the keywords of "Depression", "Emotional Depression", "Infertility", "Prevalence", and "Epidemiology", all English language articles were searched in international databases (PubMed, Cochran library, Web of sciences, Scopus, Embase, PsyINFO, and Google scholar) by two reviewers independently and without considering the time limit until September 2022. Title, abstract, full text and quality of each study were evaluated by two reviewers independently using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale checklist. The results were analyzed using programming language and R software, and I2 test and Egger's Test were used to check heterogeneity and publication bias, respectively.

Results

Twenty-two studies were included in the systematic part of this study; and 8 different measurement tools were used to identify depression. Then, based on the possibility of meta-analysis, 18 studies were included in 4 subgroups. Given the heterogeneity of the articles, random effect model was used. The overall prevalence of depression in infertile men was 18.30%. The lowest and highest overall prevalence of depression in men was reported to be 14.04% and 23.63% in the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZDS) and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) tools, respectively. The overall prevalence of depression among infertile men was reported to be 18.55% and 16.75% using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) tools, respectively.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of this study, the significant prevalence of depression in infertile men requires a specific attention and planning. The study revealed varying degrees of depression among infertile men, emphasizing the importance of assessing their mental health, specifically in terms of depression, during infertility treatments as a hidden variable. It is strongly recommended to develop training programs for health service providers to effectively utilize diagnostic tools in this particular field.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Infertility refers to the failure of getting pregnant after 12 months of unprotected sex, which can be caused by either one of the couple [1]. Often it is impossible to determine the exact cause of infertility; such a disorder is defined as idiopathic infertility, which is identified with mental disorders such as stress, depression, sleep disorders, eating disorders, and addiction [2]. Although infertility is mostly the problem of less developed countries [3], approximately 8–12% of the world's population is infertile [4]. The total rate of infertility in Iran has been reported to be 13.2%, which is close to the global statistics [5]. Among the causes of infertility, male infertility (MI) has been observed in 50% of cases [6]. As one of the main problems of reproductive health, infertility is a serious issue for the World Health Organization, as insufficient attention to it in different countries has led to widespread psychological problems at the individual and social levels [7]. In other words, infertility has always caused various social, psychological, physical and financial stresses [8]. The incidence of emotional and mental disorders among infertile people is reported to be 25–60%, which is a significant value [9]; and among mental disorders of infertile people, anxiety and depression have been more important ones [10].

As a prevalent mental disorder, depression has involved approximately 121 million people worldwide. This mental disorder is usually identified with a number of signs and symptoms such as depressed mood, loss of interest or pleasure, feelings of guilt or worthlessness, sleep or appetite disturbances, low energy, and concentration difficulties [11]. Based on the estimations of the WHO in 2020, depression is considered as the second most common disease in the world [12]. The prevalence of depression in Iran has been reported to be 30.5% [13]. People who experience fertility problems suffer from anxiety and depression almost twice more than the general population [14]. In the study of Ogawa et al., the rate of depression in infertile men and women was 9.4% and 7.9%, respectively in Japan [15], however, Masoumi et al. reported 30.5% of depression among Iranian infertile couples [16]. In Gamel et al., severe level of depression was observed in 42% of infertile men and infertility had adverse consequences on their mental health in Egypt [14]. In study in Osmaniye, some degrees of depression were observed in 20% of infertile men, and 13.3% had clinical depression that required counseling. This study also indicated that the degree of depression in about one-third of infertile men was higher than that of healthy men, and the psychological burden caused by infertility could affect one's entire life [17].

All over the world, infertility is a stressful experience which affects couples psychologically, socially, personally and culturally [18]. Although the level of depression and anxiety in infertile women is said to be higher than infertile men [19], evidence has shown that psychiatric evaluation of both man and woman contributes to more efficient use of health services and increases the success of infertility treatment [20]. Therefore, psychiatric evaluation of men has been considered as an essential part of the treatment process. Given the fact that no study has hitherto meta-analyzed the prevalence of depression among infertile men, the present study aimed to investigate this issue based on published studies from different countries of the world.

Methods

Search Strategy

This study was conducted in international databases (PubMed, Cochran library, Web of sciences, Scopus, PsyINFO, Embase) and the Google scholar search engine by two researchers independently in English and without considering any time limit until September 2022. For an inclusive search in the above databases, keywords such as "Depression", "Emotional Depression ", "Infertility", "Prevalence", and "Epidemiology" were used. These keywords were combined with AND, OR operators and the specific search strategy of each database was used (search strategy,  Additional file 1).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

First, male infertility was defined as lack of pregnancy after one year of intercourse without using any contraceptive method, according to the doctor's diagnosis or sperm analysis results. This was considered as one of the inclusion criteria for including each article in the study. Accordingly, studies with at least 30 samples were included in the initial review. Other inclusion criteria were as follows: cross-sectional studies, cross-sectional data from longitudinal studies, and studies which had used valid methods for evaluating depression (clinical interview or standard questionnaire). Thus, review articles, non-English articles, articles with non-human samples, case reports, mental illnesses, and articles whose full text was not available were excluded from the review.

Outcome measures

The main outcome in this study was depression in infertile men, which were assessed by standard tools (clinical interview or questionnaires) and reported the prevalence of depression in these men.

Data extraction

The data of the studies were extracted by two trained reviewers independently, and in case of disagreement, a third reviewer was asked to help in this regard. During the initial search, the articles were entered the EndNote software by two reviewers separately, and duplicate articles were removed.

The required data (e.g. name of authors, year of publication, place of research, sample size, type of infertility, prevalence of depression in infertile men, mean age, duration of infertility and type of tool) were extracted from the studies. The review steps are described in flowchart 1.

Quality evaluation

For quality assessment, we used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses, modified by Zhang et al. [19]. This checklist consists of 5 sections representativeness of the sample, sample size, non-respondents, ascertainment of anxiety and quality of descriptive statistics reporting. Accordingly, the articles that met the inclusion criteria were scored 0–5 based on the quality of the study and using NOS. Then, based on the total scores of < 3 and ≥ 3, the articles were classified respectively as high-risk and low-risk studies in terms of their quality (Table 1). In this study, quality assessment was done by two reviewers independently, and in case of disagreement, the opinions of a third reviewer were also used (Additional file 2). This systematic study was reported based on preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) [18].

Table 1 Characteristics of the studies selected for the meta-analysis
Full size table

Statistical analysis

In this study, I2 index was used to check the heterogeneity of the studies. Egger's test was also used to check publication bias. The overall prevalence of depression in infertile men was performed. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of tool. The data were analyzed using programming language and software. The significance level for statistical tests was considered to be 0.05.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee, Faculty of Pharmacy and Nursing.

Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University (Ethical code: IR.SBMU.RETECH.REC.1401.288). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Results

Initially 5,193 articles were found. After removing the duplicate articles, the title and abstract of the remaining articles were reviewed, and after discarding the articles unrelated to the purpose of the research and considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the original text of 150 articles was further reviewed. Finally, 22 articles entered the final study and were analyzed (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart for selection of studies

Full size image

The total sample size of the studies was 6,496 infertile men, and the smallest and the largest sample sizes were 48 and 872 subjects, respectively. The lowest and highest prevalence rates were 3.2% and 40.12% which were reported in Portugal and Egypt, respectively. The studies were conducted in 9 high-income and 13 low- and middle-income countries. One study used Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) [20], 3 studies the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) [14, 32, 40], one study the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Short Depression Scale (CES-D) [31], one study the Mental Health Inventory–5 (MHI-5) [38], one study Depression Scale (D-S) [28], 3 studies the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZDS) [33, 37, 41], 4 studies the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [26, 27, 36, 42] and 8 studies the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) [21,22,23,24,25, 29, 34, 39] to identify depression (Table 1).

Types of tools

MINI

The MINI is a short and structured diagnostic interview that was originally developed in the 1990s by psychiatrists and clinicians in the United States and Europe to assess DSM-III-R and ICD-10 psychiatric disorders [43]. It is widely recognized and utilized as part of the clinical evaluation process for depression and anxiety in primary care [44]. The MINI is considered the most effective structured psychometric diagnostic interview tool globally, and it is employed by mental health professionals and healthcare organizations in more than 100 countries. Numerous studies have confirmed its validity and reliability [45,46,47,48].

HADS

HADS is a 14-item scale with each seven items for anxiety and depression subscales. Each item is scored on a scale ranging from zero to three [49]. The total scores for each subscale range from 0 to 21 (0 to 7 indicating normal, 8 to 10 mild, 11 to 14 moderate, and 15 to 21 severe) [50]. The HADS offers several advantages, including its brevity, ease of scoring, and relatively high sensitivity. Its reliability and validity have been confirmed through studies conducted in various countries worldwide [51,52,53].

ZDS

The ZDS is a short self-administered survey used to measure the level of depression in a patient [54]. It was developed by Zung to assess depression severity [55]. Zung has reported a split-half reliability coefficient of 0.73, which has been confirmed through various studies examining its validity and reliability [54, 56, 57] The questionnaire consists of 20 items rated on a Likert scale from 1 to 4, and the total score ranges from 20 to 80 (20 to 44 indicating normal, 45 to 59 mild, 60 to 69 moderate, and 70 and above severe) [58].

BDI

The BDI consists of 21 items designed to evaluate various symptoms of depression [59]. There are different versions of this tool [60]. The total score on the BDI ranges from 0 to 63, with higher scores indicating greater levels of depression (0 to 9 indicating no symptoms, 10 to 18 mild, 19 to 29 moderate, and 30 to 63 severe) [61]. The BDI has demonstrated high construct validity in relation to the medical symptoms it measures. Studies have reported coefficient alpha values ranging from 0. 8 to above 0. 90 [62,63,64,65].

DASS

The 21-item DASS was developed by Lavibond and Lavibond in 1995 to assess stress-anxiety-depression [66]. The questionnaire comprises three components, with each subscales containing 7 items. The final score for each subscale is calculated by summing the scores of the corresponding items. Each question is scored from zero to 3. Since the DASS-21 is a shortened version of the original scale (which had 42 items), the final score for each subscale should be doubled [67]. The validity and reliability of the DASS-21 have been established, and its usefulness has been supported in both public and clinical settings [68,69,70].

CES-D

The CES-D was developed by Rudolph to assess depressive symptoms in the general population. This 20-item questionnaire is combined of different questionnaires [71]. Each item is scored on a scale from 0 to 3, and the maximum possible score is 60. Higher scores, particularly above 16, indicate a need for further clinical evaluation to diagnose mood disorders [72, 73]. The CES-D demonstrates adequate screening sensitivity and specificity when used in the general population or primary care settings. However, it should not be solely relied upon as a diagnostic measure for depression. Depending on the test objectives, a cut-off score of 20 may be more appropriate than the value of 16, which is suggested [72].

MHI-5

The MHI-5 is a concise, valid, and reliable universal tool for evaluating mental health. It was established as part of the National Health Insurance Study. The MHI-5 consists of five items, and each item is rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 6. The minimum and maximum scores are 5 and 30 for each person. This is then transformed into a variable ranging from 0–100 using a standard linear transformation [74]. The MHI-5 has been supported by evidence regarding its validity and reliability [75,76,77,78].

D-S

The D-S is used to measure fearful and irritable depression. It consists of 16 items that are rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from ‘not true’ to ‘completely true’ [28]. This tool evaluates the symptoms of depression and anxiety and its scores range from 0 and 48 [79].

Evaluation of heterogeneity and meta-analysis

Given the fact that different tools were used to investigate depression in infertile men, from the 22 articles of the systematic review section, 18 studies were used for meta-analysis in 4 subgroups of DASS, ZDS, HADS, and BDI tools. The I2 index for investigating heterogeneity was greater than 50%, and the results of the random effects method were used for reporting. The overall prevalence of depression in infertile men was found to be 18.30% (95%CI: 14.50–22.82) (Fig. 2). The results of the funnel chart for assessing the overall prevalence of depression and the results of Egger's test (t = -2.00, df = 16, p-value = 0.062) which indicate the absence of diffusion bias are also shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The overall prevalence of depression in infertile men

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Funnel chart of overall prevalence of depression in infertile men

Full size image

Based on the analysis in the subgroup of BDI tool, the overall prevalence of depression in men was 18.55% (95%CI: 14.12–23.98) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

The overall prevalence of depression in infertile men in subgroup of BDI tool

Full size image

The results of the funnel chart and the results of Egger's test (t = -1.34, df = 6, p-value = 0.2300) which indicate the absence of diffusion bias are also shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Funnel chart based on the BDI subgroup

Full size image

Based on the HADS subgroup results, the overall prevalence of depressive in infertile men was 16.57% (95% CI: 7.3–33.27) (Fig. 6). The results of the funnel chart are also shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 6
figure 6

The overall prevalence of depression in infertile men in the HADS subgroup

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Funnel chart based on the HADS subgroup

Full size image

The results of the DASS subgroup were indicative of the overall prevalence of 23.63% (95% CI: 15.07–35.06) in the depression of infertile men (Fig. 8), which was the greatest prevalence in our study. The funnel chart is shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 8
figure 8

The overall prevalence of depression in infertile men in the DASS subgroup

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

The funnel chart based on the DASS subgroup

Full size image

The results of the ZDS subgroup were indicative of the overall prevalence of 14.04% (95% CI: 7.84–23.89) in the depression of infertile men (Fig. 10), which was the lowest prevalence of depression in men based on this tool. The funnel chart is shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 10
figure 10

The overall prevalence of depression in infertile men in the ZDS subgroup

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

Funnel chart based on the ZDS subgroup

Full size image

Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of depression in infertile men. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, the lowest and highest prevalence of depression were 14.04% and 23.63%, which were based on the ZDS and DASS tools.

The overall prevalence of depression in infertile women has been reported to be 21–52% [80] which, considering the family and social pressures tolerated by infertile women [81], the depression can be expected in this population of women. The mental health of infertile men is an important aspect that should not be overlooked. In a meta-analysis, the prevalence of male depression in the general population was reported to be 2.3% [82]. However, in the present study, the prevalence of depression among infertile men was found to be higher, ranging from 14 to 23%.Furthermore, a comparative study revealed that depression was reported in infertile men across different age groups [83]. Another study found that infertile men, when compared to men in the control group, had lower scores in emotional, mental, and social aspects of quality of life [84], which suggests a potential vulnerability to psychological disorders. These findings highlight the undeniable impact of infertility on the mental health of men. However, less attention has been paid to the psychological aspects of infertile men and their mental health is usually overlooked [85].

This inattention to the emotional reactions of infertile men can be partly related to men's insufficient information and their avoidance of talking about the issue of infertility with others. Moreover, men usually do not want to seek help from mental health professionals [86]. It was reported in a study that infertile men prefer to receive even psychological support from infertility therapists and specialists [87]. Another part of this lack of attention to the psychological dimensions of infertile men can be related to the healthcare system as the psychological dimensions of infertile men are less considered in the treatment processes. In a study, 63% of infertile men stated that specialists usually interact more with their wives and demanded to be seen equally [88].

Therefore, not only infertile women are prone to depression, but infertile men are also affected by psychological pressure, as they are the main and sometimes the only source of family income. Furthermore, infertility treatments are expensive and impose a double psychological burden on infertile couples [89]. It was reported in a study that the financial burden of infertility treatments threatens occupational and financial status of men as the main providers of treatment costs [90]. All of these make infertile men also prone to more mental distress.

In addition to economic problems, social and cultural issues also seem to affect men's psychological aspects. In some countries, where masculinity is equivalent to fertility, male infertility is considered to be a stigma. In such societies, men are exposed to more psychological distresses, which make them prone to depression [38, 91]. In the study of Ahmadi et al. (2011), the prevalence of depression in Iranian infertile men was estimated to be about 43% [90], meaning that almost half of infertile men might be depressed. By contrast, in the study of Fernandes et al. (2021), the lowest prevalence of depression (3%) was reported among those subjects of this meta-analysis who suffered the longest period of infertility in Portugal [35]. While the prevalence of depression is expected to be increased with the duration of infertility [92], social and cultural issues may not also be unaffected. In fact, different view toward male fertility in the context of some countries creates a greater urgency for fertility even at younger ages. Therefore, the contribution of social and cultural issues in fertility behaviors, which definitely have an undeniable effect on mental health, should not be overlooked.

By the way, as a substantial psychological disorder in infertile men [2], depression affects not only mental health, but also treatment outcomes [38, 91]. Fertility outcomes will also be improved by informing men about psychological consequences [93], and using appropriate interventions [94, 95]. Another important point is that knowing the prevalence rates of depression in infertile men makes specialists more alert to the assessment of mental distress, even in the initial visits or the screening stage. This, in turn, results in faster diagnosis makes treatment outcomes be fulfilled in a shorter time and increases the probability of success.

In all studies reviewed in the present meta-analysis, various questionnaires were used to diagnose depression in infertile men. Although the differences between the questionnaires were not significant, the BDI could be recommended as an initial diagnostic tool for depression in infertile men. This is because the BDI was used in a larger number of studies, and its focus is specifically on the variable of depression. It should be noted that a relationship between cytokine biomarkers and depression in infertile men has been reported, which also affects fertility outcomes [96]. Therefore, incorporating biomarkers into the diagnostic process may help strengthen the diagnosis of psychological disorders. However, compared to biomarkers, the use of questionnaires is more affordable, readily available and provides a faster diagnosis process.

One of the limitations of the present study was the inclusion of studies with different tools in the measurement of depression, as a result of which it was almost impossible to combine all studies at once, though all scales were of the same type (subjective). Another limitation of the study was that non-English studies were not included, and the full text of some articles was not available. One of the strengths of the study was addressing the prevalence of psychological aspects of infertility, especially in men, which have been less addressed before.

Conclusion

Based on the results of the present meta-analysis, the prevalence of depression in men was 14–23%, which should not be overlooked. Accordingly, infertility specialists need to pay more attention on the psychological aspects of infertile men as well. In this regard, focusing on early screenings for men's depression during therapeutic interventions is needed to achieve better fertility outcomes. Therefore, it is recommended to develop educational packages or retraining programs for healthcare providers to improve their recognition and utilization of tools for diagnosing depression in men. These programs should be designed to consider the cultural and social context in which the healthcare providers operate.

Availability of data and materials

All data related to this review is included in the result section of the manuscript. If any further data is needed it can be accessible via the corresponding author on request.

Abbreviations

MI:

Male Infertility

WHO:

World Health Organization

NOS:

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale

PRISMA:

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

NA:

Not reported

MINI:

Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview

HADS:

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

ZDS:

Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale

BDI:

Beck depression inventory

DASS:

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales

CES-D:

Center of Epidemiologic Studies Short Depression Scale

MHI-5:

Mental Health Inventory–5

D-S:

Depression Scale

References

  1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, De Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(9):1786–801.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: Definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62:2–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ombelet W, Cooke I, Dyer S, Serour G, Devroey P. Infertility and the provision of infertility medical services in developing countries. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(6):605–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Szkodziak F, Krzyżanowski J, Szkodziak P. Psychological aspects of infertility. A systematic review. J Int Med Res. 2020;48(6):0300060520932403.

  5. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens GA. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012;9(12): e1001356.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Agarwal A, Mulgund A, Hamada A, Chyatte MR. A unique view on male infertility around the globe. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organization. Infertility is a global public health issue [WWW Document]. 2019. URL https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/infertility/perspective/en/. Accessed 21 Aug 2021.

  8. Nekavand M, Mobini N, Sheikhi A. A survey on the impact of relaxation on anxiety and the result of IVF in patients with infertility that have been referred to the infertility centers of Tehran university of medical sciences during 2012–2013. Nurs Midwifery J. 2015;13(7):605–12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hamid N. The effectiveness of stress management based on cognitive-behavior method on depression, anxiety and fertilization of infertile women. Int J Behav Sci. 2011;5(1):55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kiani Z, Simbar M, Hajian S, Zayeri F. Quality of life among infertile women living in a paradox of concerns and dealing strategies: a qualitative study. Nursing Open. 2021;8(1):251–61.7.

  11. Beck AT, Alford BA. Depression: causes and treatment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghandour RM, Sherman LJ, Vladutiu CJ, Ali MM, Lynch SE, Bitsko RH, et al. Prevalence and treatment of depression, anxiety, and conduct problems in US children. J Pediatr. 2019;206(256–67): e3.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wang J-Y, Chen J-D, Huang C-C, Liu C-S, Chung T-F, Hsieh M-H, et al. Investigation of time-dependent risk of mental disorders after infertility diagnosis, through survival analysis and data mining: a nationwide cohort study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018;23(3):218–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gamel WMA, Hassan HE, El-ezazy AA. Male infertility and psychological repercussions: a neglected problem in Northern Upper Egypt. Int J Stud Nurs. 2019;4(4):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ogawa M, Takamatsu K, Horiguchi F. Evaluation of factors associated with the anxiety and depression of female infertility patients. BioPsychoSocial Med. 2011;5(1):1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Masoumi SZ, Poorolajal J, Keramat A, Moosavi SA. Prevalence of depression among infertile couples in Iran: a meta-analysis study. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42(5):458.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Öncü I, Gürel G, Akkoyun A. The relationship of acne with somatosensory amplification, health anxiety, and depression levels. Cureus. 2022;14(12):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang L, Fu T, Yin R, Zhang Q, Shen B. Prevalence of depression and anxiety in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Alosaimi FD, Altuwirqi MH, Bukhari M, Abotalib Z, BinSaleh S. Psychiatric disorders among infertile men and women attending three infertility clinics in Riyadh. Saudi Arabia Ann Saudi Med. 2015;35(5):359–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Öztekin Ü, Hacimusalar Y, Gürel A, Karaaslan O. The relationship of male infertility with somatosensory amplification, health anxiety and depression levels. Psychiatry Investig. 2020;17(4):350.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ozkan B, Orhan E, Aktas N, Coskuner ER. Depression and sexual dysfunction in Turkish men diagnosed with infertility. Urology. 2015;85(6):1389–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Peterson BD, Newton CR, Rosen KH, Skaggs GE. The relationship between coping and depression in men and women referred for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):802–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Noorbala AA, Ramazanzadeh F, Malekafzali H, Abedinia N, Forooshani AR, Shariat M, et al. Effects of a psychological intervention on depression in infertile couples. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2008;101(3):248–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Peterson BD, Newton CR, Rosen KH. Examining congruence between partners’ perceived infertility-related stress and its relationship to marital adjustment and depression in infertile couples. Fam Process. 2003;42(1):59–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Maroufizadeh S, Karimi E, Vesali S, Samani RO. Anxiety and depression after failure of assisted reproductive treatment among patients experiencing infertility. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015;130(3):253–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maroufizadeh S, Ghaheri A, Almasi-Hashiani A, Mohammadi M, Navid B, Ezabadi Z, et al. The prevalence of anxiety and depression among people with infertility referring to Royan Institute in Tehran, Iran: a cross-sectional questionnaire study. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2018;23(2):103–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Beutel M, Kupfer J, Kirchmeyer P, Kehde S, Köhn FM, Schroeder-Printzen I, et al. Treatment-related stresses and depression in couples undergoing assisted reproductive treatment by IVF or ICSI. Andrologia. 1999;31(1):27–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Faramarzi M, Pasha H, Esmaelzadeh S, Jorsarai G, Mir MRA, Abedi S. Is coping strategies predictor of anxiety and depression in couple infertile? Health. 2013;5(3):7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu Y-F, Fu Z, Chen S-W, He X-P, Fan L-Y. The analysis of anxiety and depression in different stages of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in couples in China. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2021;17:649.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Li L, Zhang Y, Zeng D, Li F, Cui D. Depression in Chinese men undergoing different assisted reproductive technique treatments: prevalence and risk factors. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30(9):1161–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kazemi A, Torabi M, Abdishahshahani M. Adjustment toward infertility mediates the relationship between coping, depression and anxiety in men: a confirmatory analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;258:48–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chiaffarino F, Baldini MP, Scarduelli C, Bommarito F, Ambrosio S, D’Orsi C, et al. Prevalence and incidence of depressive and anxious symptoms in couples undergoing assisted reproductive treatment in an Italian infertility department. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;158(2):235–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Drosdzol A, Skrzypulec V. Depression and anxiety among Polish infertile couples–an evaluative prevalence study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2009;30(1):11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fernandes J, Pedro J, Costa ME, Martins MV. Effect of depression and anxiety on sexual functioning in couples trying to conceive with and without an infertility diagnosis. Psychol Health. 2021:1–18.

  36. El Kissi Y, Romdhane AB, Hidar S, Bannour S, Idrissi KA, Khairi H, et al. General psychopathology, anxiety, depression and self-esteem in couples undergoing infertility treatment: a comparative study between men and women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;167(2):185–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Babore A, Stuppia L, Trumello C, Candelori C, Antonucci I. Male factor infertility and lack of openness about infertility as risk factors for depressive symptoms in males undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatment in Italy. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(4):1041–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang B, Zhang J, Qi Y, Wang P, Jiang R, Li H. Assessment on occurrences of depression and anxiety and associated risk factors in the infertile Chinese men. Am J Mens Health. 2017;11(3):767–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Hegyi BE, Kozinszky Z, Badó A, Dombi E, Németh G, Pásztor N. Anxiety and depression symptoms in infertile men during their first infertility evaluation visit. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2019;40(4):311–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Musa R, Ramli R, Yazmie AWA, Khadijah MBS, Hayati MY, Midin M, et al. A preliminary study of the psychological differences in infertile couples and their relation to the coping styles. Compr Psychiatry. 2014;55:S65–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu Y-F, Fu Z, Chen S-W, He X-P, Fan L-Y. The analysis of anxiety and depression in different stages of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in couples in China. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2021;58(3):649–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fernandes J, Pedro J, Costa ME, Martins MV. Effect of depression and anxiety on sexual functioning in couples trying to conceive with and without an infertility diagnosis. Psychol Health. 2023;38(1):58–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Amorim P. Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): validation of a short structured diagnostic psychiatric interview. Brazilian J Psychiatry. 2000;22:106–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rossi A, Alberio R, Porta A, Sandri M, Tansella M, Amaddeo F. The reliability of the MINI-international neuropsychiatric interview-Italian version. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004;24(5):561–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Otsubo T, Tanaka K, Koda R, Shinoda J, Sano N, Tanaka S, et al. Reliability and validity of Japanese version of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005;59(5):517–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mordal J, Gundersen Ø, Bramness J. Norwegian version of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview: feasibility, acceptability and test-retest reliability in an acute psychiatric ward. Eur Psychiatry. 2010;25(3):172–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Duncan L, Georgiades K, Wang L, Van Lieshout RJ, MacMillan HL, Ferro MA, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children and Adolescents (MINI-KID). Psychol Assess. 2018;30(7):916.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pettersson A, Modin S, Wahlström R, af Winklerfelt Hammarberg S, Krakau I. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview is useful and well accepted as part of the clinical assessment for depression and anxiety in primary care: a mixed-methods study. BMC family practice. 2018;19(1):1–13.

  49. Rishi P, Rishi E, Maitray A, Agarwal A, Nair S, Gopalakrishnan S. Hospital anxiety and depression scale assessment of 100 patients before and after using low vision care: A prospective study in a tertiary eye-care setting. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017;65(11):1203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Stern AF. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Occup Med. 2014;64(5):393–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Michopoulos I, Douzenis A, Kalkavoura C, Christodoulou C, Michalopoulou P, Kalemi G, et al. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): validation in a Greek general hospital sample. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2008;7:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Montazeri A, Vahdaninia M, Ebrahimi M, Jarvandi S. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Thurber S, Snow M, Honts CR. The Zung self-rating depression scale: convergent validity and diagnostic discrimination. Assessment. 2002;9(4):401–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Zung WW. A self-rating depression scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965;12(1):63–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Biggs JT, Wylie LT, Ziegler VE. Validity of the Zung self-rating depression scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1978;132(4):381–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Gabrys JB, Peters K. Reliability, discriminant and predictive validity of the zung self-rating depression scale. Psychol Rep. 1985;57(3_suppl):1091–6.

  58. Jokelainen J, Timonen M, Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi S, Härkönen P, Jurvelin H, Suija K. Validation of the Zung self-rating depression scale (SDS) in older adults. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2019;37(3):353–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Beck depression inventory: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich New York; 1987.

  60. Hubley AM. Beck depression inventory. New York City: Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Veerman J, Dowrick C, Ayuso-Mateos J, Dunn G, Barendregt J. Population prevalence of depression and mean Beck Depression Inventory score. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;195(6):516–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Beck AT, Steer RA, Carbin MG. Psychometric properties of the beck depression inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev. 1988;8(1):77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wang Y-P, Gorenstein C. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory-II: a comprehensive review. Braz J Psychiatry. 2013;35:416–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kojima M, Furukawa TA, Takahashi H, Kawai M, Nagaya T, Tokudome S. Cross-cultural validation of the Beck Depression Inventory-II in Japan. Psychiatry Res. 2002;110(3):291–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Wang Y-P, Gorenstein C. Assessment of depression in medical patients: a systematic review of the utility of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Clinics. 2013;68:1274–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33(3):335–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Bottesi G, Ghisi M, Altoè G, Conforti E, Melli G, Sica C. The Italian version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21: factor structure and psychometric properties on community and clinical samples. Compr Psychiatry. 2015;60:170–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Yusoff MSB. Psychometric properties of the depression anxiety stress scale in a sample of medical degree applicants. Int Med J. 2013;20(3):295–300.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Musa R, Fadzil MA, Zain Z. Translation, validation and psychometric properties of Bahasa Malaysia version of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS). ASEAN J Psychiatry. 2007;8(2):82–9.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Bilgel NG, Bayram N. Turkish version of the depression anxiety stress scale (DASS-42): Psychometric properties. 2010.

  71. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1(3):385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Vilagut G, Forero CG, Barbaglia G, Alonso J. Screening for depression in the general population with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): a systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(5).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Weissman MM, Sholomskas D, Pottenger M, Prusoff BA, Locke BZ. Assessing depressive symptoms in five psychiatric populations: a validation study. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;106(3):203–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Hoeymans N, Garssen AA, Westert GP, Verhaak PF. Measuring mental health of the Dutch population: a comparison of the GHQ-12 and the MHI-5. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Strand BH, Dalgard OS, Tambs K, Rognerud M. Measuring the mental health status of the Norwegian population: a comparison of the instruments SCL-25, SCL-10, SCL-5 and MHI-5 (SF-36). Nord J Psychiatry. 2003;57(2):113–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Elovanio M, Hakulinen C, Pulkki-RÃ¥back L, Aalto A-M, Virtanen M, Partonen T, et al. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-6), and Mental Health Index (MHI-5): psychometric and predictive properties in a Finnish population-based sample. Psychiatry Res. 2020;289: 112973.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Damásio BF, Borsa JC, Koller SH. Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Five-item Mental Health Index (MHI-5). Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica. 2014;27:323–30.

  78. Santos AM, Novo RF. Mental health inventory: sensitivity and specificity of the Portuguese version of the MHI-38 and MHI-5. Psychol Rep. 2020;123(4):1452–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Harrer G, Hübner W-D, Podzuweit H. Effectiveness and tolerance of the hypericum extract LI 160 compared to maprotiline: a multicenter double-blind study. J Geriatric Psychiatry Neurol. 1994;7(1_suppl):24–8.

  80. Joja O, Dinu D, Paun D. Psychological aspects of male infertility an overview. Proc Soc Behav Sci. 2015;187:359–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Petok WD. Infertility counseling (or the lack thereof) of the forgotten male partner. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(2):260–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Gharraee B, Tajrishi KZ, Sheybani F, Tahmasbi N, Mirzaei M, Farahani H, et al. Prevalence of major depressive disorder in the general population of Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019;33:151.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Pattnaik P, Gharai SC, Samantaray N. A comparative study and association between depression and male infertility. IJIP. 2016;3(4):63–6.

    Google Scholar 

  84. El Kissi Y, Amamou B, Hidar S, Idrissi KA, Khairi H, Ali BBH. Quality of life of infertile Tunisian couples and differences according to gender. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2014;125(2):134–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Fisher JR, Hammarberg K. Psychological and social aspects of infertility in men: an overview of the evidence and implications for psychologically informed clinical care and future research. Asian J Andrology. 2012;14(1):121.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Mikkelsen AT, Madsen SA, Humaidan P. Psychological aspects of male fertility treatment. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(9):1977–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Group ECW, Group ECW, Baird D, Barri P, Bhattacharya S, Devroey P, et al. Economic aspects of infertility care: a challenge for researchers and clinicians. Human Reprod. 2015;30(10):2243–8.

  88. Hanna E, Gough B. The impact of infertility on men’s work and finances: Findings from a qualitative questionnaire study. Gend Work Organ. 2020;27(4):581–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Logan S, Gu R, Li W, Xiao S, Anazodo A. Infertility in China: culture, society and a need for fertility counselling. Asian Pac J Reprod. 2019;8(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Ahmadi H, Montaser-Kouhsari L, Nowroozi MR, Bazargan-Hejazi S. Male infertility and depression: a neglected problem in the Middle East. J Sex Med. 2011;8(3):824–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Chen D, Zhang JP, Jiang L, Liu H, Shu L, Zhang Q, et al. Factors that influence in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes of Chinese men: a cross-sectional study. Appl Nurs Res. 2016;32:222–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Kiani Z, Simbar M, Hajian S, Zayeri F. The prevalence of depression symptoms among infertile women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Res Pract. 2021;7(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Kiani Z, Simbar M, Dolatian M, Zayeri F. Women’s empowerment in reproductive decision-making needs attention among Iranian women. Iran J Public Health. 2018;47(3):464.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Frederiksen Y, Farver-Vestergaard I, Skovgård NG, Ingerslev HJ, Zachariae R. Efficacy of psychosocial interventions for psychological and pregnancy outcomes in infertile women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2015;5(1): e006592.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Wdowiak A, Bien A, Iwanowicz-Palus G, Makara-Studzińska M, Bojar I. Impact of emotional disorders on semen quality in men treated for infertility. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2017;38(1):2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Haimovici F, Anderson JL, Bates GW, Racowsky C, Ginsburg ES, Simovici D, et al. Stress, anxiety, and depression of both partners in infertile couples are associated with cytokine levels and adverse IVF outcome. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2018;79(4): e12832.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude and thank to the cooperation and assistance of the officials of faculty, library and computer ward at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Midwifery and Reproductive Health Research Center, ShahidBeheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Zahra Kiani

  2. Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Fahimeh Rashidi Fakari & Sepideh Hajian

  3. Student Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Atena Hakimzadeh

  4. Department of Midwifery, School of Medicine, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran

    Farzaneh Rashidi Fakari

  5. Department of Basic Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Malihe Nasiri

Authors
  1. Zahra Kiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fahimeh Rashidi Fakari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Atena Hakimzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sepideh Hajian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Farzaneh Rashidi Fakari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Malihe Nasiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ZK: Project development, Data Collection, Manuscript writing. FRF: project administration, writing-review, and editing, supervision. AH: Project development, Data Collection, Manuscript writing. SH: project administration, writing-review, and editing, supervision. FRF: Project development, Data Collection, Manuscript writing. MN: Project development, Data Collection, Manuscript writing. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sepideh Hajian.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee, Faculty of Pharmacy and Nursing.

Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University (Ethical code: IR.SBMU.RETECH.REC.1401.288). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

 Appendix 1. Search Strategy.

Additional file 2:

 Appendix 2. Quality assessment.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kiani, Z., Fakari, F.R., Hakimzadeh, A. et al. Prevalence of depression in infertile men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 23, 1972 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16865-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16865-4

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us