Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 1, pp 191–198 | Cite as

Attitude towards ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons: a cross-sectional study

  • Nada Woodtli
  • Michael von Wolff
  • Norman Bitterlich
  • Petra Stute
Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the attitude towards ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons.

Methods

Cross-sectional electronic survey in 248 Swiss women aged 15–35 years, nationally representative for educational level.

Results

Most women did not worry about an age-related fertility decline. Two-thirds of women would consider using hormone therapy (HT) for menopausal symptom relief although concerns about side effects and risks were still high. Acceptance of cryopreservation of oocytes (19%) or ovarian tissue (13%) for postponing fertility or menopause was generally low, but increased (37%) if both goals could be achieved with one surgery. Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue for postponing menopause was acceptable for 22% of women. Not having a suitable partner until age 35 increased the likelihood of considering postponing fertility by cryopreservation (p < 0.001) and had a stronger impact on that decision than the factor “pursuing a career” (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

More education on age-related fertility decline, menopause and HT (benefit–risk ratio) is needed. Furthermore, the political and socioeconomic discussion should focus on women’s needs, especially on compatibility of career and family.

Keywords

Cryopreservation Ovarian tissue Oocyte Hormone therapy Fertility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for all participants taking part in the survey.

Author contributions

NW: questionnaire set up, participants’ recruitment, writing the manuscript. MvW: discussion of results, advise on manuscript. NB: statistics. PS: principle investigator, responsible for study idea, design, finances, supervision of doctoral student, finalizing the manuscript.

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests in respect to the presented study.

Supplementary material

404_2018_4778_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (194 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 194 kb)

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Erwerbsbeteiligung und Erwerbslosigkeit von Frauen im Familienalter (2017) https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung/familien.gnpdetail.2016-0628.html. Accessed 19 Sep 2017
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Von Wolff M, Germeyer A, Nawroth F (2015) Fertility preservation for non-medical reasons: controversial, but increasingly common. Dtsch Arzteblatt Int 112:27–32.  https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2015.0027 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Von Wolff M, Dittrich R, Liebenthron J et al (2015) Fertility-preservation counselling and treatment for medical reasons: data from a multinational network of over 5000 women. Reprod Biomed Online 31:605–612.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adams C, Cannell S (2001) Women’s beliefs about “natural” hormones and natural hormone replacement therapy. Menopause N Y N 8:433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Von Wolff M, Dittrich R, Stute P (2015) Transplantation of ovarian tissue to postpone menopause—is it really more advantageous for women’s health than menopause hormone therapy? Reprod Biomed Online 31:827.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Von Wolff M, Stute P (2015) Cryopreservation and transplantation of ovarian tissue exclusively to postpone menopause: technically possible but endocrinologically doubtful. Reprod Biomed Online 31:718–721.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tan SQ, Tan AWK, Lau MSK et al (2014) Social oocyte freezing: a survey among Singaporean female medical students. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40:1345–1352.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12347 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu KE, Greenblatt EM (2012) Oocyte cryopreservation in Canada: a survey of Canadian ART clinics. J Obstet Gynaecol Can (JOGC) 34:250–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lallemant C, Vassard D, Nyboe Andersen A et al (2016) Medical and social egg freezing: internet-based survey of knowledge and attitudes among women in Denmark and the UK. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 95:1402–1410.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Groot M, Dancet E, Repping S et al (2016) Perceptions of oocyte banking from women intending to circumvent age-related fertility decline. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 95:1396–1401.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macklon N, Lallemant C (2014) What do you know about the biological clock? https://sites.google.com/a/lovskov.com/oocyte/home. Accessed 2 Sep 2014
  15. 15.
    Lienert Gustav Adolf, Raatz Ulrich (1998) Testaufbau und Testanalyse, 6. Beltz Psychologie-Verlagsunion, AuflGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    FIVNAT-CH-FIVNAT_Statistik_2012_vs_02_09_2014.pdf (2017) http://www.sgrm.org/wb/media/FIVNAT/FIVNAT_Statistik_2012_vs_02_09_2014.pdf. Accessed 19 Sep 2017
  18. 18.
    Cil AP, Bang H, Oktay K (2013) Age-specific probability of live birth with oocyte cryopreservation: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 100(492–499):e3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.023 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sample Size Calculator | Survey Monkey (2017) https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/. Accessed 19 Sep 2017
  20. 20.
    Statistik Schweiz—Ständige Wohnbevölkerung nach Geschlecht und Altersklasse (2016) http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/01/02/blank/key/bevoelkerungsstand/02.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2016
  21. 21.
    Lampic C, Svanberg AS, Karlstrom P, Tyden T (2006) Fertility awareness, intentions concerning childbearing, and attitudes towards parenthood among female and male academics. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 21:558–564.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cooke A, Mills TA, Lavender T (2012) Advanced maternal age: delayed childbearing is rarely a conscious choice a qualitative study of women’s views and experiences. Int J Nurs Stud 49:30–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martinelli L, Busatta L, Galvagni L, Piciocchi C (2015) Social egg freezing: a reproductive chance or smoke and mirrors? Croat Med J 56:387–391CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schochow M, Rubeis G, Buchner-Mogling G et al (2017) Social freezing in medical practice. Experiences and attitudes of gynecologists in Germany. Sci Eng Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9970-7 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jede zwölfte Frau nimmt Hormone gegen Wechsel-jahresbeschwerden (2017) https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/54788/Jede-zwoelfte-Frau-nimmt-Hormone-gegen-Wechseljahresbeschwerden. Accessed 23 Oct 2017
  26. 26.
    Manson JE, Kaunitz AM (2016) Menopause management-getting clinical care back on track. N Engl J Med 374:803–806.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1514242 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li C, Samsioe G, Lidfelt J et al (2000) Important factors for use of hormone replacement therapy: a population-based study of Swedish women. The Women’s Health in Lund Area (WHILA) study. Menopause N Y N 7:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oddens BJ, Boulet MJ (1997) Hormone replacement therapy among Danish women aged 45–65 years: prevalence, determinants, and compliance. Obstet Gynecol 90:269–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00264-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Birch Petersen K, Hvidman HW, Sylvest R et al (2015) Family intentions and personal considerations on postponing childbearing in childless cohabiting and single women aged 35–43 seeking fertility assessment and counselling. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 30:2563–2574.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Brien Y, Martyn F, Glover LE, Wingfield MB (2017) What women want? A scoping survey on women’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards ovarian reserve testing and egg freezing. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 217:71–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.08.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stoop D, Nekkebroeck J, Devroey P (2011) A survey on the intentions and attitudes towards oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons among women of reproductive age. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 26:655–661.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewis EI, Missmer SA, Farland LV, Ginsburg ES (2016) Public support in the United States for elective oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril 106:1183–1189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schick M, Sexty R, Ditzen B, Wischmann T (2017) Attitudes towards social oocyte freezing from a socio-cultural perspective. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 77:747–755.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-111412 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harper JC, Wilton L, Traeger-Synodinos J et al (2012) The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection. Hum Reprod Update 18:234–247.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baldwin K, Culley L, Hudson N et al (2015) Oocyte cryopreservation for social reasons: demographic profile and disposal intentions of UK users. Reprod Biomed Online 31:239–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.04.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Statistik Schweiz—Medizinisch unterstützte Fortpflanzung (2016) http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/14/02/03/key/02.html. Accessed 14 Apr 2016
  37. 37.
    Santo EVE, Dieamant F, Petersen CG et al (2017) Social oocyte cryopreservation: a portrayal of Brazilian women. JBRA Assist Reprod 21:101–104.  https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20170024 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wennberg A-L, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Milsom I, Brannstrom M (2016) Attitudes towards new assisted reproductive technologies in Sweden: a survey in women 30–39 years of age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 95:38–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12781 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Medizin & Service GmbHChemnitzGermany
  3. 3.Department of Gynaecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive MedicineUniversity Women’s HospitalBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations