A D Lyerly1, S Nakagawa, M Kuppermann. 1. Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7240, USA. alyerly@email.unc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fertility patients often struggle with decisions about disposition of embryos remaining after fertility treatment. We aimed to identify predictors and correlates of decisional conflict among patients facing these decisions. METHODS: We analyzed results from a survey of 2210 patients from nine geographically diverse US fertility clinics. The main outcome measure was decisional conflict about embryo disposition, as measured by the decisional conflict scale (DCS). RESULTS: Of 1244 respondents who returned the survey, 1005 with cryopreserved embryos and DCS scores were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 39% reported high decisional conflict (DCS ≥ 37.5). Thoughts about future childbearing were associated with high decisional conflict: respondents who were either uncertain about whether to have a baby in the future or sure they did not want to have a baby were at higher odds of high decisional conflict than participants who desired a baby [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.93, P < 0.001 and aOR = 1.69, P = 0.04, respectively]. Also associated with high decisional conflict were being likely to have embryos thawed and discarded (aOR = 2.08, P < 0.001), donated for research (aOR = 1.66, P = 0.01) or frozen 'forever' (aOR = 1.90, P = 0.01); being likely to choose compassionate transfer if it were available (aOR = 1.65, P = 0.03); attributing high, but not full, moral status to human embryos; not having enough information; and not being satisfied with the informed consent process. CONCLUSIONS: Decisional conflict about frozen embryo disposition differs according to reproductive preferences that may vary according to stage of treatment. Informed consent for embryo disposition should be revisited periodically, with serious discussions about disposition after childbearing is complete.
BACKGROUND: Fertility patients often struggle with decisions about disposition of embryos remaining after fertility treatment. We aimed to identify predictors and correlates of decisional conflict among patients facing these decisions. METHODS: We analyzed results from a survey of 2210 patients from nine geographically diverse US fertility clinics. The main outcome measure was decisional conflict about embryo disposition, as measured by the decisional conflict scale (DCS). RESULTS: Of 1244 respondents who returned the survey, 1005 with cryopreserved embryos and DCS scores were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 39% reported high decisional conflict (DCS ≥ 37.5). Thoughts about future childbearing were associated with high decisional conflict: respondents who were either uncertain about whether to have a baby in the future or sure they did not want to have a baby were at higher odds of high decisional conflict than participants who desired a baby [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.93, P < 0.001 and aOR = 1.69, P = 0.04, respectively]. Also associated with high decisional conflict were being likely to have embryos thawed and discarded (aOR = 2.08, P < 0.001), donated for research (aOR = 1.66, P = 0.01) or frozen 'forever' (aOR = 1.90, P = 0.01); being likely to choose compassionate transfer if it were available (aOR = 1.65, P = 0.03); attributing high, but not full, moral status to human embryos; not having enough information; and not being satisfied with the informed consent process. CONCLUSIONS: Decisional conflict about frozen embryo disposition differs according to reproductive preferences that may vary according to stage of treatment. Informed consent for embryo disposition should be revisited periodically, with serious discussions about disposition after childbearing is complete.
Authors: Robert D Nachtigall; Kirstin Mac Dougall; Matthew Lee; Jennifer Harrington; Gay Becker Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Karen Steinhauser; Emily Namey; James A Tulsky; Robert Cook-Deegan; Jeremy Sugarman; David Walmer; Ruth Faden; Edward Wallach Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2006-05-04 Impact factor: 7.329
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
Authors: Jamie C Brehaut; Annette M O'Connor; Timothy J Wood; Thomas F Hack; Laura Siminoff; Elisa Gordon; Deb Feldman-Stewart Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
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
Authors: Carlos Wilson Dala Paula Abreu Abreu; Maria Lúcia Andrade Abreu; Maria Mariana Andrade Abreu; João Pedro Andrade Abreu; Luiz Fernando Cal Silva; Ines Katerina Damasceno Cavallo Cruzeiro; Rui Manuel Lopes Nunes Journal: JBRA Assist Reprod Date: 2021-04-27