OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
Mar 01, 2025;

Acceptance rates and reasons for social oocyte cryopreservation among women: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Özden Tandoğan, Gözde Küğcümen, İlkay Güngör Satılmış
Author Information
  1. Özden Tandoğan: Department of Nursing, İstanbul Arel University, Cevizlibağ, Istanbul, Turkey, 34020. ozdentandogan@arel.edu.tr. ORCID
  2. Gözde Küğcümen: Department of Midwifery, School of Health Science, Istanbul Medipol University, Kavacık, Istanbul, Turkey, 34810. ORCID
  3. İlkay Güngör Satılmış: Department of Women's Health and Gynecologic Nursing, Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey. ORCID
PMID: 40024978 DOI: 10.1007/s10815-025-03425-5

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the acceptance rates and reasons for social oocyte cryopreservation (SOC) in the general population (subgroup 1) and healthcare professionals/students (subgroup 2) according to the current literature. Relevant studies published between 2007 and Sept 2023 were identified from electronic databases, including PubMed, EBSCO MEDLINE Complete, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, and CINAHL. Quantitative studies reporting women's acceptance rates and reasons for social oocyte cryopreservation were eligible. A total of 20 quantitative studies were included in this process. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models to evaluate study effect sizes. A total of 20 articles were analyzed. While the acceptance rate of SOC women in the general population was 56.5% (95% CI = 47.8-64.9%; τ = 0.98, df = 20; p < 0.001), this rate was between 42 and 66% in female healthcare professionals/students (p > 0.05; I = 98.46%; df = 20; p < 0.001). Among the acceptable reasons for SOC, cost-recovery (67.9%, 95% CI = 58-76%, I = 97.88%, τ = 0.95, df = 6; p < 0.001) and inability to find a suitable partner (45.7%, 95% CI = 32.6-59.5%; I = 97.96%, df = 10; p < 0.001) stand out. Acceptance rates did not differ significantly between the general population and healthcare professionals/students' inability to find a suitable partner (p > 0.05). The meta-analysis shows that more than half of women accept SOC, with the acceptance rate increasing in the absence of a partner and if the cost is affordable.Trial registration CRD42023455656.

Keywords

Acceptance Meta-analysis Social oocyte cryopreservation Social oocyte freezing Systematic

References

  1. Pai HD, Baid R, Palshetkar NP, Pai A, Pai RD, Palshetkar R. Oocyte cryopreservation - current scenario and future perspectives: a narrative review. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2021;14(4):340–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_173_21 . [DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_173_21]
  2. Ghazeeri G, Beyrouthy C, El-Taha L, Abiad M, Fahs D. Knowledge & attitudes toward fertility preservation (medical and social freezing) among Lebanese women between the ages of 18 and 39 years. PLoS ONE. 2023;8(18):9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291249 . [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291249]
  3. Kasaven L, Jones B, Heath C, Odia R, Green J, Petrie A, Saso S, Serhal P, Ben-Nagi J. Analysis of ten years of social oocyte cryopreservation: a research article. Authorea Preprints 2020; https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160226405.50599698/v1 .
  4. Poli M, Capalbo A. Oocyte cryopreservation at a young age provides an effective strategy for expanding fertile lifespan. Front Reprod Health. 2021;3:704283. [DOI: 10.3389/frph.2021.704283]
  5. Wennberg AL, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Milsom I, Brännström M. Attitudes towards new assisted reproductive technologies in Sweden: a survey in women 30–39 years of age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(1):38–44. [DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12781]
  6. Stevenson EL, Gispanski L, Fields K, Cappadora M, Hurt M. Knowledge and decision making about future fertility and oocyte cryopreservation among young women. Hum Fertil. 2021;24(2):112–21. [DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2018.1546411]
  7. Tozzo P, Fassina A, Nespeca P, Spigarolo G, Caenazzo L. Understanding social oocyte freezing in Italy: a scoping survey on university female students’ awareness and attitudes. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2019;15:1–14. [DOI: 10.1186/s40504-019-0092-7]
  8. Daniluk JC, Koert E. Childless women’s beliefs and knowledge about oocyte freezing for social and medical reasons. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(10):2313–20. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew189]
  9. Lahoti U, Pajai S, Shegekar T, Juganavar A. Exploring the landscape of social egg freezing: navigating medical advancements, ethical dilemmas, and societal impacts. Cureus. 2023;30(15):47956. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.47956 . [DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47956]
  10. Ben-Rafael Z. The dilemma of social oocyte freezing usage rate is too low to make it cost-effective. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37(4):443–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.06.024 . [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.06.024]
  11. Tandoğan Ö, Kugcumen G, Satılmış İG. Opinions of female academicians on oocyte freezing: a qualitative study. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2023;69(7):20230221. [DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20230221]
  12. Gambadauro P, Bränn E, Hadlaczky G. Acceptance and willingness-to-pay for oocyte cryopreservation in medical versus age-related fertility preservation scenarios among Swedish female university students. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):5325. [DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-32538-z]
  13. Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Bakas P, Giannelou P, Papapetrou C, Kalampokas T, et al. Postponing pregnancy through oocyte cryopreservation for social reasons: considerations regarding clinical practice and the socio-psychological and bioethical issues involved. Medicina. 2018;54(5):76. [DOI: 10.3390/medicina54050076]
  14. Bozzaro C. Is egg freezing a good response to socioeconomic and cultural factors that lead women to postpone motherhood? Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36(5):594–603. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.01.018]
  15. Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01 . Available date: 25.07.2024.
  16. 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. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.201]
  17. Stoop D, Nekkebroeck J, Devroey P. A survey on the intentions and attitudes towards oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons among women of reproductive age. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(3):655–61. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq367]
  18. Petersen K, Hvidman HW, Sylvest R, Pinborg A, Larsen EC, Macklon KT, et al. Family intentions and personal considerations on postponing childbearing in childless cohabiting and single women aged 35–43 seeking fertility assessment and counselling. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(11):2563–74. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev237]
  19. Arendt M, Oxlad M. Australian women’s views concerning non-medical egg freezing and factors motivating freezing decisions. Br J Health Psychol. 2023;28(3):639–50. [DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12646]
  20. Johnston M, Fuscaldo G, Richings NM, Gwini S, Catt S. Cracked open: exploring attitudes on access to egg freezing. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020;28(1):1758441. [DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2020.1758441]
  21. Armstrong AG, Woods M, Keomany J, Grainger D, Shah S, Pavone M. What do female medical students know about planned oocyte cryopreservation and what are their personal attitudes? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023;40(6):1305–11. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-023-02845-5]
  22. Nasab S, Shah JS, Nurudeen K, Jooya ND, Abdallah ME, Sibai BM. Physicians’ attitudes towards using elective oocyte cryopreservation to accommodate the demands of their career. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:1935–47. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01541-7]
  23. Katsani D, Paraschou N, Panagouli E, Tsarna E, Sergentanis TN, Vlahos N, Tsitsika A. Social egg freezing-a trend or modern reality? J Clin Med. 2024;13(2):390. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020390 . [DOI: 10.3390/jcm13020390]
  24. Esfandiari N, Litzky J, Sayler J, Zagadailov P, George DL. Egg freezing for fertility preservation and family planning: a nationwide survey of US obstetrics and gynecology residents. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019;17:1–9. [DOI: 10.1186/s12958-019-0459-x]
  25. Deborah- Ikhena-Abel DE, Confino R, Shah NJ, Lawson AK, Klock SC, Robins JC, Pavone ME. Is employer coverage of elective egg freezing coercive?: A survey of medical students’ knowledge, intentions, and attitudes towards elective egg freezing and employer coverage. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34:1035–41. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-017-0956-9]
  26. Hong YH, Park JW, Kim H, Kim SK, Choo CW, Jee BC, et al. A survey on the awareness and knowledge about elective oocyte cryopreservation among unmarried women of reproductive age visiting a private fertility center. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2019;62(6):438–44. [DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2019.62.6.438]
  27. Lallemant C, Vassard D, Nyboe Andersen A, Schmidt L, Macklon N. Medical and social egg freezing: internet-based survey of knowledge and attitudes among women in Denmark and the UK. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(12):1402–10. [DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13024]
  28. Sayegh L, Coussa A, Kadhom M, Neinavaei N, Hasan H. Knowledge and attitude of reproductive-aged women towards planned oocyte cryopreservation in the United Arab Emirates. J Assis Reprod Genet. 2023;40(3):609–16. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-023-02715-0]
  29. Nunes T, Galhardo A, Moniz S, Massano-Cardoso I, Cunha M. Fertility and fertility preservation knowledge in Portuguese women. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2024;42(5):814–26. [DOI: 10.1080/02646838.2023.2209603]
  30. Santo EVE, Dieamant F, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Vagnini LD, Renzi A, et al. Social oocyte cryopreservation: a portrayal of Brazilian women. JBRA Assis Reprod. 2017;21(2):101.
  31. O’Brien Y, Martyn F, Glover LE, Wingfield MB. 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. 2017;217:71–6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.08.024]
  32. Tan SQ, Tan AWK, Lau MSK, Tan HH, Nadarajah S. Social oocyte freezing: a survey among Singaporean female medical students. J Obstetr Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(5):1345–52. [DOI: 10.1111/jog.12347]
  33. Woodtli N, von Wolff M, Bitterlich N, Stute P. Attitude towards ovarian tissue and oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons: a cross-sectional study. Archives Of Gynecol Obstetr. 2018;298:191-198.7. [DOI: 10.1007/s00404-018-4778-5]
  34. Baldwin K. Reasons for choosing egg freezing: a retrospective analysis of 3,000 women and their experiences. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(4):14.
  35. Huang E, Shandley LM, Mehta A, Kobashi KC, Muthigi A. Fertility preservation for ıatrogenic ınfertility: patient barriers and opportunities for the reproductive medicine workforce. Urol Pract. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000735
  36. Pathak S, Voigt P, Bellon M, Vadaparampil ST, Quinn GP. Fertility preservation options at cancer diagnosis; classifying use and decision-making in the United States. Exp Rev Endocrinol Metab (just-accepted). 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/17446651.2024.2448789
  37. Kanters NTJ, Brokke KE, Bos AME, Benneheij SH, Kostenzer J, Ockhuijsen HDL. An unconventional path to conventional motherhood: a qualitative study of women’s motivations and experiences regarding social egg freezing in the Netherlands. J Gynecol Obstetr Human Reprod. 2022;51(2):102268. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102268]
  38. Inhorn MC, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Westphal LM, Doyle J, Gleicher N, Meirow D, et al. Ten pathways to elective egg freezing: a binational analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:2003–11. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1277-3]
  39. Kakkar P, Geary J, Stockburger T, Kaffel A, Kopeika J, El-Toukhy T. Outcomes of social egg freezing: a cohort study and a comprehensive literature review. J Clin Med. 2023;12:14. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12134182 . [DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134182]
  40. Kynigopoulou S, Matsas A, Tsarna E, Christopoulou S, Panagopoulos P, Bakas P, Christopoulos P. Egg cryopreservation for social reasons—a literature review. Healthcare. 2024;12(23):2421. [DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12232421]
  41. Akhondi MM, Ardakani ZB, Warmelink JC, Haghani S, Ranjbar F. Knowledge and beliefs about oocyte cryopreservation for medical and social reasons in female students: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Women’s Health. 2023;23:336. [DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02481-2]
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0oocyteacceptanceratesreasonscryopreservationSOCp < 0001meta-analysissocialgeneralpopulationhealthcarestudiesrate95%partnerAcceptancesystematicreviewsubgroupprofessionals/studentsSciencetotal20women5%9%τ = 0df = 20p > 005I = 97inabilityfindsuitableSocialaimdetermine12accordingcurrentliteratureRelevantpublished2007Sept2023identifiedelectronicdatabasesincludingPubMedEBSCOMEDLINECompleteWebDirectScopusCINAHLQuantitativereportingwomen'seligiblequantitativeincludedprocessMeta-analysesconductedusingrandom-effectsmodelsevaluatestudyeffectsizesarticlesanalyzed56CI = 478-64984266%femaleI = 9846%Amongacceptablecost-recovery67CI = 58-76%88%95df = 6457%CI = 326-5996%df = 10standdiffersignificantlyprofessionals/students'showshalfacceptincreasingabsencecostaffordableTrialregistrationCRD42023455656amongwomen:Meta-analysisfreezingSystematic

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.