Literature DB >> 30623694

Knowledge and decision making about future fertility and oocyte cryopreservation among young women.

Eleanor L Stevenson1, Lauren Gispanski2, Kristin Fields2, Maria Cappadora3, Melissa Hurt2.   

Abstract

The objective was to examine what young graduate student women know about preserving fertility/oocyte cryopreservation, and which reproductive resources they use. A prospective, cross-sectional design was used and the study was conducted at a University on the East Coast of the United States. The participants were 278 female graduate students. Participants completed a survey with questions about demographics, fertility knowledge, oocyte cryopreservation, and sources of fertility information. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables. Participants had average knowledge about fertility (64% items correct). The most used fertility information source was formal education (87.1%), information to help make fertility decisions was gynaecologists (85.3%), and oocyte cryopreservation was media (63.4%). Only 26.6% reported being well informed about fertility. Although 93.9% had heard of oocyte cryopreservation, only 7.2% had considered its use. Most (74.9%) ranked fertility as important, though 83% would consider postponing family until career (85.2%) and relationship (85.2%) were established. Half felt that there was a social stigma surrounding oocyte cryopreservation, and 70.1% believed that the media gives the impression that motherhood is viable after 40 years old. Professionally motivated women receive the most information about fertility from formal, accuracy-driven sources (i.e. education, healthcare providers), but information about fertility preservation from media. They lack knowledge about fertility planning.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Elective; cryopreservation; fertility; oocyte; vitrification

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30623694     DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2018.1546411

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Fertil (Camb)        ISSN: 1464-7273            Impact factor:   2.767


  7 in total

1.  For whom the egg thaws: insights from an analysis of 10 years of frozen egg thaw data from two UK clinics, 2008-2017.

Authors:  Zeynep B Gürtin; Lucy Morgan; David O'Rourke; Jinjun Wang; Kamal Ahuja
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Likelihood of achieving a 50%, 60%, or 70% estimated live birth rate threshold with 1 or 2 cycles of planned oocyte cryopreservation.

Authors:  Bat-Sheva L Maslow; Michael M Guarnaccia; Leslie Ramirez; Joshua U Klein
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-16       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Fertility preservation in Hong Kong Chinese society: awareness, knowledge and acceptance.

Authors:  Suet Ying Yeung; Elaine Yee Lee Ng; Terence Tzu Hsi Lao; Tin Chiu Li; Jacqueline Pui Wah Chung
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2020-04-29       Impact factor: 2.809

4.  Evidenced-based practice of decision-making process in oncofertility care among registered nurses: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Ching-Ting Lien; Sheng-Miauh Huang; Yi Hua Chen; Wen-Ting Cheng
Journal:  Nurs Open       Date:  2020-11-18

5.  Variation in Self-Perceived Fecundity among Young Adult U.S. Women.

Authors:  Alison Gemmill; Erica Sedlander; Marta Bornstein
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2020-08-21

6.  Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test information on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites: a content analysis.

Authors:  Tessa Copp; Brooke Nickel; Sarah Lensen; Karin Hammarberg; Devora Lieberman; Jenny Doust; Ben W Mol; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Knowledge gaps in the understanding of fertility among non-medical graduate students.

Authors:  Lia A Bernardi; Marissa Luck; Moira A Kyweluk; Eve C Feinberg
Journal:  F S Rep       Date:  2020-08-08
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.