Skip to main content

Counseling patients on reproductive aging and elective fertility preservation—a survey of obstetricians and gynecologists’ experience, approach, and knowledge

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics volume 35, pages 1613–1621 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

What are the experience, approach, and knowledge of US Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ob-gyn) towards counseling patients on reproductive aging (RA) and elective fertility preservation (EFP).

Methods

A cross-sectional survey emailed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to 5000 ACOG fellows consisting of 9 demographic and 28 questions relating to counseling patients on RA and EFP.

Results

Seven hundred and eighty-four responders completed the survey. Although 82.8% agreed that conversations relating to RA should take place with patients desiring future childbearing and delaying due to social reasons, only 27.6% stated that they frequently counsel these women aged 18–34 years old, compared to 75.8% aged 35–44 years old (P < 0.01). Limited time (75.8%) and limited knowledge (41.4%) were amongst the most frequent reported barriers towards counseling patients on RA. Fifty-eight percent stated that they have been asked about EFP by patients. Although 74.8% agreed that conversations should take place related to EFP in women desiring future childbearing and delaying due to social reasons, only 27.6% stated that they frequently counsel these patients on EFP (P < 0.01). Limited time (75%) and limited knowledge (59.9%) were amongst the most frequent barriers towards counseling on EFP.

Conclusions

In the USA, methods to improve patient counseling and provider knowledge on RA and EFP are warranted and further studies are needed to address optimal methods to improve counseling and knowledge related to these topics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Block E. Quantitative morphological investigations of the follicular system in women; variations at different ages. Acta Anat (Basel). 1952;14(1–2):108–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker TG. A quantitative and cytological study of germ cells in human ovaries. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1963;158:417–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pellestor F, Andreo B, Arnal F, Humeau C, Demaille J. Maternal aging and chromosomal abnormalities: new data drawn from in vitro unfertilized human oocytes. Hum Genet. 2003;112(2):195–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-002-0852-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Driscoll AK, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2017;66(1):1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hodes-Wertz B, Druckenmiller S, Smith M, Noyes N. What do reproductive-age women who undergo oocyte cryopreservation think about the process as a means to preserve fertility? Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1343–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Heck KE, Schoendorf KC, Ventura SJ, Kiely JL. Delayed childbearing by education level in the United States, 1969-1994. Matern Child Health J. 1997;1(2):81–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hammarberg K, Clarke VE. Reasons for delaying childbearing--a survey of women aged over 35 years seeking assisted reproductive technology. Aust Fam Physician. 2005;34(3):187–8. 206

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/art/reports/archive.html. Accessed 3/13/2017 2017.

  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/art/reports/2014/national-summary.html. Accessed 3/13/2017 2017.

  10. Chen C. Pregnancy after human oocyte cryopreservation. Lancet. 1986;1(8486):884–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Grifo JA, Noyes N. Delivery rate using cryopreserved oocytes is comparable to conventional in vitro fertilization using fresh oocytes: potential fertility preservation for female cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):391–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.067.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Trokoudes KM, Pavlides C, Zhang X. Comparison outcome of fresh and vitrified donor oocytes in an egg-sharing donation program. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(6):1996–2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cobo A, Diaz C. Clinical application of oocyte vitrification: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):277–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rienzi L, Romano S, Albricci L, Maggiulli R, Capalbo A, Baroni E, et al. Embryo development of fresh 'versus' vitrified metaphase II oocytes after ICSI: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(1):66–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cobo A, Meseguer M, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Use of cryo-banked oocytes in an ovum donation programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(9):2239–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cobo A, Rubio C, Gerli S, Ruiz A, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Use of fluorescence in situ hybridization to assess the chromosomal status of embryos obtained from cryopreserved oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(2):354–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Noyes N, Porcu E, Borini A. Over 900 oocyte cryopreservation babies born with no apparent increase in congenital anomalies. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;18(6):769–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Goldman KN, Kramer Y, Hodes-Wertz B, Noyes N, McCaffrey C, Grifo JA. Long-term cryopreservation of human oocytes does not increase embryonic aneuploidy. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(3):662–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.11.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cobo A, Serra V, Garrido N, Olmo I, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):1006–15 e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chian RC, Huang JY, Tan SL, Lucena E, Saa A, Rojas A, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcome in 200 infants conceived from vitrified oocytes. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;16(5):608–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive M, Society for Assisted Reproductive T. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Peterson BD, Pirritano M, Tucker L, Lampic C. Fertility awareness and parenting attitudes among American male and female undergraduate university students. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1375–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Virtala A, Vilska S, Huttunen T, Kunttu K. Childbearing, the desire to have children, and awareness about the impact of age on female fertility among Finnish university students. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2011;16(2):108–15. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2011.553295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hashiloni-Dolev Y, Kaplan A, Shkedi-Rafid S. The fertility myth: Israeli students' knowledge regarding age-related fertility decline and late pregnancies in an era of assisted reproduction technology. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(11):3045–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chan CH, Chan TH, Peterson BD, Lampic C, Tam MY. Intentions and attitudes towards parenthood and fertility awareness among Chinese university students in Hong Kong: a comparison with Western samples. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):364–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu324.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bretherick KL, Fairbrother N, Avila L, Harbord SH, Robinson WP. Fertility and aging: do reproductive-aged Canadian women know what they need to know? Fertil Steril. 2010;93(7):2162–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yu L, Peterson B, Inhorn MC, Boehm JK, Patrizio P. Knowledge, attitudes, and intentions toward fertility awareness and oocyte cryopreservation among obstetrics and gynecology resident physicians. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):403–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev308.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lundsberg LS, Pal L, Gariepy AM, Xu X, Chu MC, Illuzzi JL. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding conception and fertility: a population-based survey among reproductive-age United States women. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):767–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bunting L, Tsibulsky I, Boivin J. Fertility knowledge and beliefs about fertility treatment: findings from the international fertility decision-making study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(2):385–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dunson DB, Baird DD, Colombo B. Increased infertility with age in men and women. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(1):51–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000100153.24061.45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Howe G, Westhoff C, Vessey M, Yeates D. Effects of age, cigarette smoking, and other factors on fertility: findings in a large prospective study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985;290(6483):1697–700.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Stovall DW, Toma SK, Hammond MG, Talbert LM. The effect of age on female fecundity. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77(1):33–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Maroulis G. Effects of aging on fertility and pregnancy. Seminars in Reproductive Aging. 9(3):165–74.

  34. Schwartz D, Mayaux MJ. Female fecundity as a function of age: results of artificial insemination in 2193 nulliparous women with azoospermic husbands. Federation CECOS. N Engl J Med. 1982;306(7):404–6. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198202183060706.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Practice Committee. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee opinion no. 589. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):633–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunson DB, Colombo B, Baird DD. Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(5):1399–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Steiner AZ, Jukic AM. Impact of female age and nulligravidity on fecundity in an older reproductive age cohort. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1584–8 e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Cramer DW, Xu H, Harlow BL. Family history as a predictor of early menopause. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(4):740–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Schattman GL, Clinical Practice. Cryopreservation of Oocytes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(18):1755–60. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1307341.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Augood C, Duckitt K, Templeton AA. Smoking and female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(6):1532–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Barnhart K, Dunsmoor-Su R, Coutifaris C. Effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(6):1148–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee opinion no. 589. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(3):719–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000444440.96486.61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hoffman MC, Jeffers S, Carter J, Duthely L, Cotter A, Gonzalez-Quintero VH. Pregnancy at or beyond age 40 years is associated with an increased risk of fetal death and other adverse outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(5):e11–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.10.862.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Forrester MB, Merz RD. Maternal age-specific down syndrome rates by maternal race/ethnicity, Hawaii, 1986-2000. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2003;67(9):625–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.10112.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Cleary-Goldman J, Malone FD, Vidaver J, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, et al. Impact of maternal age on obstetric outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(5 Pt 1):983–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000158118.75532.51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Nybo Andersen AM, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P, Olsen J, Melbye M. Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ. 2000;320(7251):1708–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Hvidman HW, Petersen KB, Larsen EC, Macklon KT, Pinborg A, Nyboe AA. Individual fertility assessment and pro-fertility counselling; should this be offered to women and men of reproductive age? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(1):9–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mesen TB, Mersereau JE, Kane JB, Steiner AZ. Optimal timing for elective egg freezing. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1551–6 e1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. van Loendersloot LL, Moolenaar LM, Mol BW, Repping S, van der Veen F, Goddijn M. Expanding reproductive lifespan: a cost-effectiveness study on oocyte freezing. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(11):3054–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wyndham N, Marin Figueira PG, Patrizio P. A persistent misperception: assisted reproductive technology can reverse the “aged biological clock”. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(5):1044–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Benzies K, Tough S, Tofflemire K, Frick C, Faber A, Newburn-Cook C. Factors influencing women’s decisions about timing of motherhood. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2006;35(5):625–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2006.00079.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tough S, Tofflemire K, Benzies K, Fraser-Lee N, Newburn-Cook C. Factors influencing childbearing decisions and knowledge of perinatal risks among Canadian men and women. Matern Child Health J. 2007;11(2):189–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-006-0156-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tan SQ, Tan AW, Lau MS, Tan HH, Nadarajah S. Social oocyte freezing: a survey among Singaporean female medical students. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(5):1345–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Grant UA6MC19010).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montefiore Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women’s Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine / Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA

    Rani Fritz, Susan Klugman, Harry Lieman & Erkan Buyuk

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Jay Schulkin

  3. Research Department, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Washington, DC, 20024, USA

    Laura Taouk & Neko Castleberry

Authors
  1. Rani Fritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Klugman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harry Lieman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jay Schulkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Taouk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Neko Castleberry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Erkan Buyuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erkan Buyuk.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 32 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 19.2 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 18.7 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fritz, R., Klugman, S., Lieman, H. et al. Counseling patients on reproductive aging and elective fertility preservation—a survey of obstetricians and gynecologists’ experience, approach, and knowledge. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 1613–1621 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1273-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1273-7

Keywords

  • Reproductive aging
  • Fertility preservation
  • Counseling
  • Obstetricians/gynecologists
  • Oocyte cryopreservation