Influence of psychosocial work factors on male fertility and sperm quality: a scoping review

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: While much research is available on the implications of environmental and occupational exposures to chemicals on infertility and sperm quality, less is known about the impact of psychosocial work exposures on male reproductive health, including sperm quality. Therefore, this scoping review maps evidence of the psychosocial work factors and their effects on male fertility, including sperm quality. METHODS: Searches were conducted in JSTOR, Central, PubMed, and Web of Science, with additional searches carried out in Google and Google Scholar. The study included only peer-reviewed articles published in the English language, conducted among male working population between January 1990 and January 2024. Two authors independently extracted data from eligible full-text records, which the other two authors reviewed the extracted data. RESULTS: The search conducted in the selected databases produced 1,322 records, and through a rigorous screening process, 18 full-text peer reviewed articles were included in this review. The findings about the influence of shift work, long working hours, and job strain on male fertility and sperm quality remain inconclusive. Unfortunately, job stress and cognitive weariness reduce male fertility by lowering sperm quality. Fortunately, social support at work is found to buffer the effect of high job demands on sperm quality. Moreover, workers who smoke tobacco, have poor sleep quality, and have history of depression and diabetes are more likely to suffer infertility and have poor sperm quality. CONCLUSION: Workplace interventions are needed to match high job demands with adequate job resources such as social support, job control, adequate breaks and rest periods, and to encourage healthy lifestyles for improved reproductive health outcomes among male workers. More quality studies are needed to explore the influence of psychosocial working conditions on sperm quality.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.