Search

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional studies have shown that sexual dysfunction and poor quality of life were prevalent among couples undergoing assisted reproduction at specific time points, but nothing is known about how these outcomes change over the course of their intrauterine insemination (IUI) journey. AIM: We investigated the longitudinal changes in sexual function and quality of life of infertile couples undergoing IUI. METHODS: Sixty-six infertile couples completed an anonymous questionnaire at 3 time points: after IUI counseling (T1), 1 day before IUI (T2), and 2 weeks after IUI (T3). The questionnaire consisted of demographic data, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) or International Index of Erectile Function-5, and Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL). OUTCOMES: Descriptive statistics, significance testing with the Friedman test, and post hoc analysis with the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used to compare changes in sexual function and quality of life at different time points. RESULTS: Overall, 18 (26.1%), 16 (23.2%), and 12 (17.4%) women and 29 (42.0%), 37 (53.6%), and 31 (44.9%) men were at risk for sexual dysfunction at T1, T2, and T3, respectively. There were significant differences in mean FSFI scores in arousal (3.87, 4.06, 4.10) and orgasm (4.15, 4.24, 4.39) domains at T1, T2, and T3. After post hoc analysis, only the increase in mean orgasm FSFI scores between T1 and T3 was statistically significant. Men's FertiQoL scores remained high during IUI (74.33-75.63 out of 100). Men also scored significantly higher than women on all FertiQoL domains except environment at the 3 time points. Post hoc analysis showed significant improvement in women's FertiQoL domain scores between T1 and T2: mind-body, environment, treatment, and total. Women's FertiQoL score at T2 for the treatment domain was also significantly higher than that at T3. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Men should not be neglected during IUI as their erectile function got worse in the process, with half of

There has been a recent interest in listening effort as a factor to be taken into account in the audiological clinic. However, the term “listening effort” is poorly determined and needs to be defined before it can be used as a clinical or research tool. One way of understanding listening effort is in terms of the cognitive resources expended during listening. Cognitive capacity is finite and thus if cognitive capacity is used up during the act of listening to speech there will be fewer cognitive resources left to process the content of the message conveyed. We have introduced the term Cognitive Spare Capacity (CSC) to refer to residual cognitive capacity once successful listening has taken place. This extended abstract described the work we have carried out to date on measures of CSC for research and clinical use. In the course of this work we have developed tests to assess the role of memory load, executive function and audiovisual integration in CSC under challenging conditions. When these tests are fully developed, our aim is that they should allow objective individual assessment of listening effort in cognitive terms. Results to date indicate that under challenging conditions, CSC is an arena for executive processing of temporarily stored information; it is related to individual working memory capacity and can be enhanced by hearing aid signal processing.