Literature DB >> 19061998

Fertility patients' views about frozen embryo disposition: results of a multi-institutional U.S. survey.

Anne Drapkin Lyerly1, Karen Steinhauser, Corrine Voils, Emily Namey, Carolyn Alexander, Brandon Bankowski, Robert Cook-Deegan, William C Dodson, Elena Gates, Emily S Jungheim, Peter G McGovern, Evan R Myers, Barbara Osborn, William Schlaff, Jeremy Sugarman, James A Tulsky, David Walmer, Ruth R Faden, Edward Wallach.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe fertility patients' preferences for disposition of cryopreserved embryos and determine factors important to these preferences.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted between June 2006 and July 2007.
SETTING: Nine geographically diverse U.S. fertility clinics. PATIENT(S): 1020 fertility patients with cryopreserved embryos. INTERVENTION(S): Self-administered questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Likelihood of selecting each of five conventional embryo disposition options: store for reproduction, thaw and discard, donate to another couple, freeze indefinitely, and donate for research; likelihood of selecting each of two alternative options identified in previous research: placement of embryos in the woman's body at an infertile time, or a disposal ceremony; importance of each of 26 considerations to disposition decisions; and views on the embryo's moral status. RESULT(S): We found that 54% of respondents with cryopreserved embryos were very likely to use them for reproduction, 21% were very likely to donate for research, 7% or fewer were very likely to choose any other option. Respondents who ascribed high importance to concerns about the health or well-being of the embryo, fetus, or future child were more likely to thaw and discard embryos or freeze them indefinitely. CONCLUSION(S): Fertility patients frequently prefer disposition options that are not available to them or find the available options unacceptable. Restructuring and standardizing the informed consent process and ensuring availability of all disposition options may benefit patients, facilitate disposition decisions, and address problems of long-term storage. Copyright 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19061998      PMCID: PMC2828821          DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  26 in total

Review 1.  The social implications of embryo cryopreservation.

Authors:  Brandon J Bankowski; Anne D Lyerly; Ruth R Faden; Edward E Wallach
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 7.329

2.  Embryo disposal practices in IVF clinics in the United States.

Authors:  Andrea D Gurmankin; Dominic Sisti; Arthur L Caplan
Journal:  Politics Life Sci       Date:  2004-08-09

3.  Ethics. The ISSCR guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research.

Authors:  George Q Daley; Lars Ahrlund Richter; Jonathan M Auerbach; Nissim Benvenisty; R Alta Charo; Grace Chen; Hong-Kui Deng; Lawrence S Goldstein; Kathy L Hudson; Insoo Hyun; Sung Chull Junn; Jane Love; Eng Hin Lee; Anne McLaren; Christine L Mummery; Norio Nakatsuji; Catherine Racowsky; Heather Rooke; Janet Rossant; Hans R Schöler; Jan Helge Solbakk; Patrick Taylor; Alan O Trounson; Irving L Weissman; Ian Wilmut; John Yu; Laurie Zoloth
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-02-02       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Elements to be considered in obtaining informed consent for ART.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  A middle ground for stem cells.

Authors:  Yuval Levin
Journal:  N Y Times Web       Date:  2007-01-19

6.  Audio interview: expanding federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Interview by Rachel Gotbaum.

Authors:  Orrin G Hatch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-04-23       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Embryonic stem cells. Willingness to donate frozen embryos for stem cell research.

Authors:  Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Ruth R Faden
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-06-21       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Parent identity and 'virtual' children: why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos.

Authors:  Sheryl de Lacey
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2005-03-10       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  Deciding the fate of supernumerary frozen embryos: a survey of couples' decisions and the factors influencing their choice.

Authors:  Karin Hammarberg; Leesa Tinney
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-05-23       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: fresh insights into patients' thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos.

Authors:  Sheryl de Lacey
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2007-04-07       Impact factor: 6.918

View more
  27 in total

Review 1.  Counseling and consenting women with cancer on their oncofertility options: a clinical perspective.

Authors:  Emily S Jungheim; Kenneth R Carson; Douglas Brown
Journal:  Cancer Treat Res       Date:  2010

Review 2.  Psychological Counseling of Female Fertility Preservation Patients.

Authors:  Angela K Lawson; Susan C Klock; Mary Ellen Pavone; Jennifer Hirshfeld-Cytron; Kristin N Smith; Ralph R Kazer
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2015

3.  Impedance of novel therapeutic technologies: the case of stem cells.

Authors:  David G Zacharias; Timothy J Nelson; Paul S Mueller; C Christopher Hook
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 4.689

4.  Correcting misperceptions about cryopreserved embryos and stem cell research.

Authors:  Geoffrey P Lomax; Alan O Trounson
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 54.908

5.  What do patients want? Expectations and perceptions of IVF clinic information and support regarding frozen embryo disposition.

Authors:  Robert D Nachtigall; Kirstin Mac Dougall; Matthew Lee; Jennifer Harrington; Gay Becker
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Recent trends in embryo disposition choices made by patients following in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Vinita M Alexander; Joan K Riley; Emily S Jungheim
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 7.  Best practices for controlled ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Emily S Jungheim; Melissa F Meyer; Darcy E Broughton
Journal:  Semin Reprod Med       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 1.303

8.  How couples who have undergone in vitro fertilization decide what to do with surplus frozen embryos.

Authors:  Robert D Nachtigall; Kirstin Mac Dougall; Jennifer Harrington; Julia Duff; Matthew Lee; Gay Becker
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2009-08-22       Impact factor: 7.329

9.  Decisional conflict among couples seeking specialty treatment for infertility in the USA: a longitudinal exploratory study.

Authors:  R Anguzu; R Cusatis; N Fergestrom; A Cooper; K D Schoyer; J B Davis; J Sandlow; K E Flynn
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-03-27       Impact factor: 6.918

10.  Pre-treatment preferences and characteristics among patients seeking in vitro fertilisation.

Authors:  Anthony Ph Walsh; Gary S Collins; Monique Le Du; David J Walsh; Eric Scott Sills
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 3.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.