Literature DB >> 31667820

Perceptions, outcomes, and regret following social egg freezing in the UK; a cross-sectional survey.

Benjamin P Jones1,2, Lorraine Kasaven1, Ariadne L'Heveder1, Maria Jalmbrant1, Joy Green3, Mahmoud Makki3, Rabi Odia3, Guy Norris3, Timothy Bracewell Milnes2, Srdjan Saso1,2, Paul Serhal3, Jara Ben Nagi3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Social egg freezing enhances reproductive autonomy by empowering women with the capacity to delay their childbearing years, while preserving the opportunity to maintain biological relation with subsequent offspring. However, age-related obstetric complications, economic implications and the risk of unsuccessful future treatment make it a controversial option. Despite the upward trend in women electively cryopreserving their eggs, there is limited data about the women's perceptions, having undergone the process. The aim of this study was to investigate the motivations of women who have undergone social egg freezing, identify their perceptions following treatment, and assess potential feelings of regret.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional survey, based at a fertility clinic in the UK, used an electronic questionnaire to assess the motivations and perceptions of women who underwent social egg freezing between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2018.
RESULTS: One hundred questionnaires were distributed, and 85 women responded (85% response rate). The most frequent reason for freezing oocytes was not having a partner with 56 (70%) women saying it "definitely" influenced their decision. The majority of women (83%; n = 68) knew there was a chance of treatment failure in the future and that a live birth could not be guaranteed. More than half (n = 39; 51%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the 10-year UK storage limit is fair. One-third of respondents (n = 17; 33%) felt the storage time should be indefinite and 29% (n = 15) believed it should be up to the age of 50. Twenty percent (n = 15) of the women who underwent social egg freezing have successfully had a baby or are currently pregnant, half (n = 8; 53%) of whom conceived spontaneously and a quarter (n = 4; 26%) used their stored oocytes. In all, 91% (n = 73) had no regrets over their decision to undergo social egg freezing.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate herein important and novel insights into the motivations and perceptions of women from a UK population who have undergone social egg freezing. Despite potential physical, psychological, and financial burdens, only a small minority of women experience regret after social egg freezing. We also highlight clear discontent with the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority storage limit among social egg freezers in the UK.
© 2019 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  fertility preservation; infertility; oocyte cryopreservation; perceptions; social egg freezing; vitrification

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31667820     DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13763

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  8 in total

1.  Clinical outcome of planned oocyte cryopreservation at advanced age.

Authors:  Avi Tsafrir; Ido Ben-Ami; Talia Eldar-Geva; Michael Gal; Nava Dekel; Hadassah Levi; Oshrat Schonberger; Naama Srebnik; Amir Weintraub; Doron Goldberg; Jordana Hyman
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 3.357

2.  Medical technologies, time, and the good life.

Authors:  Claudia Bozzaro
Journal:  Hist Philos Life Sci       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 1.452

3.  Assessing the quality of decision-making for planned oocyte cryopreservation.

Authors:  Samantha Yee; Carly V Goodman; Vivian Fu; Nechama J Lipton; Michal Dviri; Jordana Mashiach; Clifford L Librach
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Elective oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility decline.

Authors:  E Chronopoulou; C Raperport; A Sfakianakis; G Srivastava; R Homburg
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 5.  Oocyte cryopreservation review: outcomes of medical oocyte cryopreservation and planned oocyte cryopreservation.

Authors:  Zachary Walker; Andrea Lanes; Elizabeth Ginsburg
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 5.211

Review 6.  Age-related fertility decline: is there a role for elective ovarian tissue cryopreservation?

Authors:  Lorraine S Kasaven; Srdjan Saso; Natalie Getreu; Helen O'Neill; Timothy Bracewell-Milnes; Fevzi Shakir; Joseph Yazbek; Meen-Yau Thum; James Nicopoullos; Jara Ben Nagi; Paul Hardiman; Cesar Diaz-Garcia; Benjamin P Jones
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 6.353

7.  Reproductive outcomes from ten years of elective oocyte cryopreservation.

Authors:  Lorraine S Kasaven; Benjamin P Jones; Carleen Heath; Rabi Odia; Joycelia Green; Aviva Petrie; Srdjan Saso; Paul Serhal; Jara Ben Nagi
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 2.493

8.  Decision regret and associated factors following oocyte cryopreservation in patients with diminished ovarian reserve and/or age-related fertility decline.

Authors:  Aysen Gurbuz; Aylin Pelin Cil; Lale Suzan Karakis; Remzi Abali; Mehmet Ceyhan; Ece Aksakal; Azer Kilic; Mustafa Bahceci; Bulent Urman
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-04-02       Impact factor: 3.357

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.