Many people who are having fertility treatment describe a wearing mix of hope, waiting, injections, appointments and disappointment. It is natural to wonder whether a short online psychological programme could make that load easier. A 2025 Canadian trial found that one did ease distress and improve quality of life, but it did not show any difference in pregnancy rates. Feeling better and becoming more likely to conceive are separate questions, and this study speaks to the first only.
The trial was published online on 16 December 2025 in Human Reproduction by a team at the University of Regina. It was registered in advance on ClinicalTrials.gov. Recruitment took place across Canada from January to November 2024, through fertility clinics, social media and online support groups.
A total of 173 adults assigned female at birth who were experiencing infertility were randomly assigned, by a 1:1 process, to one of two groups. One group received the Coping with Infertility programme: seven weekly video modules of about ten minutes each, delivered by email or a mobile app, each with a homework task. Topics included challenging unhelpful thoughts and core beliefs, doing meaningful activities, coping with grief, relationships and living by personal values. No therapist was involved. The other group continued with usual life and care and was offered the programme after the study. The analysis included 160 people. Most participants were white, married or in a common-law relationship, highly educated, and pursuing medically assisted reproduction.

Compared with the waitlist group, people who did the programme reported better results on the main measures at the end of the programme:
The differences were largest for people who already had notable symptoms at the start. Among those with clearer depression or anxiety scores, effect sizes were above 0.9. A larger share of the programme group reached a level of improvement that researchers consider clinically meaningful.
Not everything changed. There was no significant effect on relationship quality. Rates of new mood or anxiety diagnoses were lower in the programme group (9.7% versus 18.6%) before adjusting for starting levels, but not after adjusting, so this should not be read as a clear difference.
Pregnancy rates were 13.0% in the programme group and 21.5% in the comparison group. That difference was not statistically significant, and the authors state that pregnancy was not measured by best-practice methods. The honest reading is that the study cannot say whether the programme affects pregnancy either way. It was not designed or powered to answer that question.
About three quarters of the programme group completed all seven modules, and 85% watched at least half.
This trial shows that, for this group of people, a short self-guided programme was linked to better emotional wellbeing in the following weeks compared with waiting. It does not show that stress causes infertility, that reducing stress leads to pregnancy, or that people who struggle emotionally have done anything wrong. Points to consider:
If your distress feels overwhelming, or you have thoughts of harming yourself, please contact your doctor, Lifeline on 13 11 14, or call 000 in an emergency.
This article is general education, not medical advice. It does not suggest starting, stopping or changing any treatment.
Source: Testing the efficacy of a self-guided psychotherapy intervention for infertility-related distress: a randomized controlled trial DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaf237
AI-generated editorial illustration. The scene is fictional and does not depict a study participant or demonstrate treatment effectiveness. This article summarises published research in our own words and is general information, not personal health advice.
Comments are disabled