Psychological medicine · 2025
28 days later: A prospective daily study on psychological well-being across the menstrual cycle and the effects of hormones and oral contraceptives.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Doornweerd Anne Marieke, Gerritsen Lotte
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We aimed to study how hormonal status (oral contraceptive [OC] users vs naturally cycling [NC]) affects different dimensions and variability of psychological well-being, and how they relate to sex hormone levels (estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone).
METHODS: Twenty-two NC participants and 18 OC users reported daily affective and physical symptoms and collected daily salivary samples across 28 days. Groups were compared using psychological well-being averages (linear mixed models), day-to-day variability (Levene's test), and network models. Within NC participants, cycle phase effects and time-varying associations between hormones and psychological well-being were assessed using both person-centered mean and change (subtracting mean from daily score) scores.
RESULTS: Lowered variability was found for OC users' agitation, risk-taking, attractiveness, and energy levels. They showed lower overall ratings of happiness, attractiveness, risk-taking, and energy levels (range R2m = .004: .019) but also reported more relaxation, sexual desire, and better sleep quality (range R2m = .005; .01) compared to the NC group. The impact of sex hormones on psychological well-being varied significantly across cycle phases, with the largest effects for progesterone levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that hormonal status is associated with a range of psychological well-being domains beyond mood and sexual desire, including energy levels, feelings of attractiveness, risk taking, and agitation. Lowered variability in OC users versus NC participants fit with 'emotional blunting' as a possible mechanism behind OC's side effects. Our findings that show the menstrual cycle and sex hormones differentially influenced markers of psychological well-being emphasize the need to adequately account for the menstrual cycle.
METHODS: Twenty-two NC participants and 18 OC users reported daily affective and physical symptoms and collected daily salivary samples across 28 days. Groups were compared using psychological well-being averages (linear mixed models), day-to-day variability (Levene's test), and network models. Within NC participants, cycle phase effects and time-varying associations between hormones and psychological well-being were assessed using both person-centered mean and change (subtracting mean from daily score) scores.
RESULTS: Lowered variability was found for OC users' agitation, risk-taking, attractiveness, and energy levels. They showed lower overall ratings of happiness, attractiveness, risk-taking, and energy levels (range R2m = .004: .019) but also reported more relaxation, sexual desire, and better sleep quality (range R2m = .005; .01) compared to the NC group. The impact of sex hormones on psychological well-being varied significantly across cycle phases, with the largest effects for progesterone levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that hormonal status is associated with a range of psychological well-being domains beyond mood and sexual desire, including energy levels, feelings of attractiveness, risk taking, and agitation. Lowered variability in OC users versus NC participants fit with 'emotional blunting' as a possible mechanism behind OC's side effects. Our findings that show the menstrual cycle and sex hormones differentially influenced markers of psychological well-being emphasize the need to adequately account for the menstrual cycle.