Construction of family relationships in infertile families

Hashemikhah, Zeinab; Afshani, SeyedAlireza; Afrasiabi, Hossein; Ruhani, Ali

doi:10.30487/jcp.2022.312598.1332

Construction of family relationships in infertile families

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

zeinab Hashemikhah ¹

SeyedAlireza Afshani ²

Hossein Afrasiabi ³

Ali Ruhani ²

¹ Student of Yazd University

² Social Welfare Department, Social Sciences Faculty, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

³ Sociology Department, Social Sciences Faculty, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

10.30487/jcp.2022.312598.1332

Abstract

One of the important problems in today's modern society is infertility. Its therapeutic process may challenge the relationships and the foundation of the family. therefore, the present research studies those infertility families which passed the treatment process and analyses their psychological encounter to the fertility issue as well as the effects of the treatment process on couples' relationships. Accordingly, we analyzed the interviews, report 13, with the couples who had children after the treatment using the Grounded Theory and Glazier Approach in two real and theoretical coding based on a sign-concept model. The results show that individual and mutual feelings facing infertility are in accord with Scarification, shared path, to be sacrificed, which the Looking Glass Self matter shows such mental health. However, the couple's relationship during the treatment process shows a more compatible situation, taking advantage of the threads, keeping norms, taking control of the situation, and a brief note to having weak control of the situation which the Coexistence Under Crisis Circumstances restates the matter in accord with the subject. In the end, from the two mentioned matters the Construction of family relationships in infertile families phenomena was made. The result is that depending on individual perceptions and re-reading of each other's feelings about the infertility situation, couples either experience emotional coldness or become more interested in their spouse.

Keywords

Family

Infertility

Mutual Feelings

Family Relationships

20.1001.1.25887211.1401.6.1.12.4

البوغبیش، ت.، خجستهمهر، ر.، و عباسپور، ذ. (1398). پیش‌بینی رضایت زناشویی براساس انگیزههای استقبالی و اجتنابی فداکاری و رفتارهای فداکارانه در بافت فرهنگی اهواز. روا‌ن‌شناسی فرهنگی، 2 (3) ، 139ـ155.

باقری‌ لنکرانی، ن. ( 1395). نگرش زوجین نابارور به اهدای اسپرم: نقش باورهای مذهبی. خانواده‌پژوهی، 46، 215ـ 236.

بشارت، م.، لشکری، م.، و رضازاده، س.م.ر. (1393). تبیین سازگاری با ناباروری براساس کیفیت رابطه، باورهای زوجین و حمایت اجتماعی. روان‌شناسی خانواده، 2، 41ـ54.

بکایی، م.، سیمبر، م.، یاسینی اردکانی، س. م.، و علوی مجد، ح. (1396). بررسی تأثیر ناباروری بر روابط زوجین: یک مطالعۀ کیفی. تحقیقات کیفی در علوم سلامت، 1، 63ـ77.

جنیدی، ا.، نورانی‌سعدالدین، ش.، مخبر، ن.، و شاکری، م. ت. (1388). مقایسۀ خشنودی زناشویی در زنان بارور و نابارور مراجعه‌کننده به مراکز دولتی شهر مشهد. زنان مامایی و نازایی ایران، 12 (1)، 7ـ16.

شاه‌حسینی تازیک، س.، صیادی، م.، و طاهری، ن. (1398). تعهد زناشویی و کیفیت ارتباط در زوجین بارور و نابارور. افق دانش، ۲۵ (۳)، 184ـ 197.

فرخ اسلاملو، ح.ر.، حاجی‌شفیع‌ها، م.، کاظمی، ع. س.، و اشنویی، س. (1393). تأثیر ناباروری اولیه بر کیفیت زندگی زنان در شهرستان ارومیه. پزشکی ارومیه، 25 (7)، 598ـ604.

کوئن، ب. (1989). درآمدی به جامعهشناسی. ترجمۀ م. ثلاثی (1383). تهران: توتیا.

گیدنز، آ.، و کارن، ب.(1386). جامعه‌شناسی. ترجمۀ ح. چاوشیان. تهران: نشر نی.

منادی، م. (1385). جامعه‌شناسی خانواده: تحلیل روزمرگی و فضای درون خانواده. تهران: دانژه.

Bennett, S.L.R. (2009). An investigation of sources of women infertility specific distress and well-being. Oxford University Press.

Cousineau, T. M., & Domar, A. D. (2007). Psychological impact of infertility. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology, 21(2), 293-308.

Ghadiri, M. (2017). The Restrictions for ARTs Applicants in the Light of Human Rights Principle. Bioethics and Health Law Journal (BHL), 1(2), 33-42.

Ghezelseflo, M., Jazayeri, R., Bahrami, F., Fesharaki, R.M. (2016). The role of relational maintenance behavior and attachment styles in predicting marital commitment. Asian Social Science, 12(9), 223-239.

Givertz, M., Segrin, C., Woszidlo, A. (2016). Direct and indirect effects of commitment on interdependence and satisfaction in married couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(2), 214-220.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

Hart, V. A. (2002). Infertility and the role of psychotherapy. Journal of Nursing Research, 23, 31- 41.

Jungwirth, A., Giwercman, A., Tournaye, H., Diemer, T., Kopa, Z., Dohle, G., ... & EAU Working Group on Male Infertility. (2012). European Association of Urology guidelines on Male Infertility: the 2012 update. European urology, 62(2), 324-332.

Lunenfeld, B., & Van Steirteghem, A. (2007). Infertility in the third millennium: implications for the individual, family and society: condensed meeting report from the Bertarelli Foundation's second global conference. Human reproduction update, 10(4), 317-326.

Malin, M., Hemminki, E., Räikkönen, O., Sihvo, S., & Perälä, M. L. (2001). What do women want? Women's experiences of infertility treatment. Social science & medicine, 53(1), 123-133.

Robinson, CD. (2017). Differences in marital satisfaction and marital commitment based on theological adherence to and practice of biblically based principles according to ephesians [PhD. dissertation]. California: Alliant International University.

Watkins, K. J., & Baldo, T. D. (2004). The infertility experience: Biopsychosocial effects and suggestions for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 394-420.

Weeks, G., & Treat, S. (2013). Couples in treatment. New York: Routledge.