Knowledge and beliefs about oocyte cryopreservation for medical and social reasons in female students: a cross-sectional survey.

Mohammad Mehdi Akhondi, Zohreh Behjati Ardakani, J Catja Warmelink, Shima Haghani, Fahimeh Ranjbar
Author Information
  1. Mohammad Mehdi Akhondi: Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
  2. Zohreh Behjati Ardakani: Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
  3. J Catja Warmelink: University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Primary and Long-term Care, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
  4. Shima Haghani: Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Health Management Research Institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  5. Fahimeh Ranjbar: Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Health Management Research Institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ranjbar.f@iums.ac.ir.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the increasing number of young women surviving cancer and a growing trend among highly educated women to postpone childbearing for educational or professional pursuits, there is a rising demand for egg freezing services to ensure a successful pregnancy. This study aims to assess the knowledge and beliefs surrounding oocyte cryopreservation, both for medical and social reasons, among female students in Tehran, Iran.
METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was carried out from March to August of 2022, involving a total of 1279 childless students pursuing master's and doctoral degrees at universities in Tehran. The participants were between the ages of 18 and 38. Knowledge and beliefs about medical and social oocyte cryopreservation were assessed through Fertility Preservation Survey (FPS) instrument.
RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 26.38 ± 4.9. The majority of students expected to be "30-34 years" when they become pregnant with their first child (41.1%, M: 30.3 ± 4.13 years) and "35-39 years" when they give birth to their last child (46.7%, M: 35.28 ± 4.18 years). The students agreed with preserving fertility with medical (93.3%) and social (86.9%) indications and believed the medical (95.1%) and social (87.4%) costs of cryopreservation should be covered by the healthcare system. Among the participants, 75.6% considered cost to be a definite or probable factor in their decision to pursue fertility preservation. The oncology team's recommendation was identified as the most important factor in deciding on medical egg freezing (92.6%, M: 3.46 ± 0.71). The overall correct response rate for the knowledge questions was 57.7%. The majority of participants (95.5%) agreed that physicians should routinely provide information about egg freezing to women of childbearing age during their regular healthcare visits.
CONCLUSIONS: The research results revealed that female students in Tehran universities have a positive attitude towards medical and social egg freezing, but lack sufficient knowledge about the ideal timing of childbearing. Health professionals could provide detailed information about fertility preservation and age-related infertility as part of routine healthcare visits or reproductive health planning. Additionally, expanding supportive policies and incentives for childbearing established by the government to cover the costs of fertility preservation would be beneficial.

Keywords

References

  1. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022 Jun;39(6):1383-1392 [PMID: 35499778]
  2. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 Dec;43(4):532-540 [PMID: 35998044]
  3. Hum Reprod. 2011 Mar;26(3):655-61 [PMID: 21212052]
  4. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2016 Aug;66(4):213-7 [PMID: 27382212]
  5. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018 Apr;23(2):130-138 [PMID: 29667456]
  6. BMC Public Health. 2020 Jun 8;20(1):886 [PMID: 32513145]
  7. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Nov;41(5):859-868 [PMID: 32873492]
  8. BMC Womens Health. 2020 Apr 29;20(1):86 [PMID: 32349724]
  9. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2019 May 3;15(1):3 [PMID: 31049743]
  10. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019 Jan;28(1):e12947 [PMID: 30421553]
  11. BMC Womens Health. 2018 Oct 29;18(1):177 [PMID: 30373587]
  12. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017 Jun;57:50-57 [PMID: 28550713]
  13. Hum Reprod. 2016 Oct;31(10):2313-20 [PMID: 27591238]
  14. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018 Oct;37(4):443-448 [PMID: 30396456]
  15. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2016 Aug 20;2:62-70 [PMID: 29892718]
  16. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2022 Jan 3;:1-8 [PMID: 34978246]
  17. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2022 Jul;25(3):487-498 [PMID: 32907411]
  18. Hum Reprod. 2016 Feb;31(2):403-11 [PMID: 26677956]
  19. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017 Feb 08;11:ed62 [PMID: 28275393]
  20. Medicina (Kaunas). 2018 Oct 25;54(5): [PMID: 30366459]
  21. Swiss Med Wkly. 2013 Feb 27;143:w13746 [PMID: 23519931]
  22. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2020 Feb 22;95(1):6 [PMID: 32813137]
  23. Future Sci OA. 2020 Mar 31;6(5):FSO468 [PMID: 32518683]
  24. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 May;98(5):583-597 [PMID: 30723914]
  25. PLoS One. 2021 Sep 14;16(9):e0257128 [PMID: 34520504]
  26. Croat Med J. 2015 Aug;56(4):387-91 [PMID: 26321034]
  27. Arch Iran Med. 2015 Jan;18(1):2-5 [PMID: 25556378]
  28. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):719-29 [PMID: 27125212]
  29. Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Sep;102(9):1695-1702 [PMID: 31003877]
  30. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2018 Apr;21(1):35-38 [PMID: 28625095]
  31. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Jun;97(6):641-647 [PMID: 29480938]
  32. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015 Mar;42(1):15-25 [PMID: 25681837]
  33. Minerva Med. 2020 Feb;111(1):50-61 [PMID: 31755673]
  34. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015 Aug;31(2):239-45 [PMID: 26099440]
  35. Clin Med Insights Reprod Health. 2019 Sep 03;13:1179558119873386 [PMID: 31516316]
  36. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017 Jun 1;21(2):101-104 [PMID: 28609276]
  37. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2022 Sep 14;27(5):413-419 [PMID: 36524147]
  38. Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 10;14(6): [PMID: 35326578]
  39. J Nurs Res. 2015 Dec;23(4):313-21 [PMID: 26562463]
  40. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Jan;32(1):121-31 [PMID: 26611498]

Grants

  1. 1401-2-45-23693/Iran University of Medical Sciences

MeSH Term

Pregnancy
Female
Humans
Cross-Sectional Studies
Iran
Cryopreservation
Students
Oocytes

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0medicalsocialeggfreezingcryopreservationstudentschildbearingparticipantsfertilitypreservationwomenknowledgebeliefsoocytefemaleTehranFertilityM:healthcareamongreasonscross-sectionalsurveyuniversities18Knowledgeagemajorityyears"child1%years7%agreed95costs6%factorprovideinformationvisitsinfertilityBACKGROUND:increasingnumberyoungsurvivingcancergrowingtrendhighlyeducatedpostponeeducationalprofessionalpursuitsrisingdemandservicesensuresuccessfulpregnancystudyaimsassesssurroundingIranMETHODS:onlinecarriedMarchAugust2022involvingtotal1279childlesspursuingmaster'sdoctoraldegreesages38assessedPreservationSurveyFPSinstrumentRESULTS:mean2638 ± 49expected"30-34becomepregnantfirst41303 ± 413"35-39givebirthlast463528 ± 4preserving933%869%indicationsbelieved874%coveredsystemAmong75consideredcostdefiniteprobabledecisionpursueoncologyteam'srecommendationidentifiedimportantdeciding92346 ± 071overallcorrectresponseratequestions575%physiciansroutinelyregularCONCLUSIONS:researchresultsrevealedpositiveattitudetowardslacksufficientidealtimingHealthprofessionalsdetailedage-relatedpartroutinereproductivehealthplanningAdditionallyexpandingsupportivepoliciesincentivesestablishedgovernmentcoverbeneficialstudents:Age-relatedsparingtreatmentOocyteSocial

Similar Articles

Cited By (5)