The Development and Phase 1 Evaluation of a Decision Aid for Elective Egg Freezing

Overview

Journal BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Medical Informatics

Date 2023 May 5

PMID 37147687

Authors

Sherine Sandhu

Martha Hickey

Raelia Lew

Karin Hammarberg

Sabine Braat

Franca Agresta

Anna Parle

Catherine Allingham

Michelle Peate

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Elective egg freezing decisions are complex. We developed a Decision Aid for elective egg freezing and conducted a phase 1 study to evaluate its acceptability and utility for decision-making.

Methods: The online Decision Aid was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards and evaluated using a pre/post survey design. Twenty-six Australian women aged 18-45 years, interested in receiving elective egg freezing information, proficient in English, and with access to the internet were recruited using social media and university newsletters. Main outcomes were: acceptability of the Decision Aid; feedback on the Decision Aid design and content; concern raised by the Decision Aid, and; utility of the Decision Aid as measured by scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale and on a study-specific scale assessing knowledge about egg freezing and age-related infertility.

Results: Most participants found the Decision Aid acceptable (23/25), balanced (21/26), useful for explaining their options (23/26), and for reaching a decision (18/26). Almost all reported satisfaction with the Decision Aid (25/26) and the level of guidance it provided (25/26). No participant reported serious concerns about the Decision Aid, and most would recommend it to other women considering elective egg freezing (22/26). Median Decisional Conflict Scale score decreased from 65/100 (Interquartile range: 45-80) pre-Decision Aid to 7.5/100 (Interquartile range: 0-37.5) post-Decision Aid review (p < 0.001). Median knowledge score increased from 8.5/14 (Interquartile range: 7-11) pre-Decision Aid to 11/14 (Interquartile range: 10-12) post-Decision Aid review (p = 0.01).

Conclusion: This elective egg freezing Decision Aid appears acceptable and useful for decision-making. It improved knowledge, reduced decisional conflict and did not raise serious concerns. The Decision Aid will be further evaluated using a prospective randomised control trial.

Study Registration: ACTRN12618001685202 (retrospectively registered: 12 October 2018).

Citing Articles

Eggsurance? A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for elective egg freezing.

Sandhu S, Hickey M, Koye D, Braat S, Lew R, Hart R Hum Reprod. 2024; 39(8):1724-1734.

PMID: 38876980 PMC: 11291942. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deae121.

References

Kim R, Yoon T, Kang I, Koong M, Kim Y, Kim M . Decision making processes of women who seek elective oocyte cryopreservation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018; 35(9):1623-1630. PMC: 6133813. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1255-9. View

Wyndham N, Marin Figueira P, Patrizio P . A persistent misperception: assisted reproductive technology can reverse the "aged biological clock". Fertil Steril. 2012; 97(5):1044-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.015. View

Prior E, Lew R, Hammarberg K, Johnson L . Fertility facts, figures and future plans: an online survey of university students. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2018; 22(4):283-290. DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2018.1482569. View

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. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60025-9. View

Hammarberg K, Setter T, Norman R, Holden C, Michelmore J, Johnson L . Knowledge about factors that influence fertility among Australians of reproductive age: a population-based survey. Fertil Steril. 2012; 99(2):502-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.10.031. View

Harper J, Hammarberg K, Simopoulou M, Koert E, Pedro J, Massin N . The International Fertility Education Initiative: research and action to improve fertility awareness. Hum Reprod Open. 2021; 2021(4):hoab031. PMC: 8441587. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoab031. View

Sousa-Leite M, Figueiredo B, Ter Keurst A, Boivin J, Gameiro S . Women's attitudes and beliefs about using fertility preservation to prevent age-related fertility decline-A two-year follow-up. Patient Educ Couns. 2019; 102(9):1695-1702. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.03.019. View

Yee S, Goodman C, Fu V, Lipton N, Librach C . Parenthood desire, childbearing plans and oocyte utilization among women who previously underwent planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020; 42(2):442-450. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.10.004. View

Trokoudes K, 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.035. View

10.

Cil A, Bang H, Oktay K . Age-specific probability of live birth with oocyte cryopreservation: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(2):492-9.e3. PMC: 3888550. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.023. View

11.

Chauhan D, Jackson E, Harper J . Childless by circumstance - Using an online survey to explore the experiences of childless women who had wanted children. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2020; 12:44-55. PMC: 7732864. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2020.09.006. View

12.

Hammarberg K, Zosel R, Comoy C, Robertson S, Holden C, Deeks M . Fertility-related knowledge and information-seeking behaviour among people of reproductive age: a qualitative study. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2016; 20(2):88-95. DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2016.1245447. View

13.

Tsafrir A, Holzer H, Miron-Shatz T, Eldar-Geva T, Gal M, Ben-Ami I . 'Why have women not returned to use their frozen oocytes?': a 5-year follow-up of women after planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021; 43(6):1137-1145. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.08.026. View

14.

Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde J . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2008; 42(2):377-81. PMC: 2700030. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. View

15.

Goldman K, Noyes N, Knopman J, McCaffrey C, Grifo J . Oocyte efficiency: does live birth rate differ when analyzing cryopreserved and fresh oocytes on a per-oocyte basis?. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(3):712-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.040. View

16.

Wafi A, Nekkebroeck J, Blockeel C, De Munck N, Tournaye H, De Vos M . A follow-up survey on the reproductive intentions and experiences of women undergoing planned oocyte cryopreservation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020; 40(2):207-214. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.11.010. View

17.

. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101(3):633-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.032. View

18.

Bodin M, Plantin L, Schmidt L, Ziebe S, Elmerstig E . The pros and cons of fertility awareness and information: a generational, Swedish perspective. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2021; 26(2):216-225. DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2021.1968045. View

19.

Siano L, Engmann L, Nulsen J, Benadiva C . A prospective pilot study comparing fertilization and embryo development between fresh and vitrified sibling oocytes. Conn Med. 2013; 77(4):211-7. View

20.

Greenwood E, Pasch L, Hastie J, Cedars M, Huddleston H . To freeze or not to freeze: decision regret and satisfaction following elective oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2018; 109(6):1097-1104.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.127. View