Decision-making in women who considered planned oocyte cryopreservation: decision satisfaction or regret?

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Reproductive biomedicine online Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.103944
A. Korkidakis , S. Martinez , R. Sabbagh , Q. Heyward , D. Sakkas , A. Domar , T.L. Toth
{"title":"Decision-making in women who considered planned oocyte cryopreservation: decision satisfaction or regret?","authors":"A. Korkidakis ,&nbsp;S. Martinez ,&nbsp;R. Sabbagh ,&nbsp;Q. Heyward ,&nbsp;D. Sakkas ,&nbsp;A. Domar ,&nbsp;T.L. Toth","doi":"10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.103944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Research question</h3><div>Among women who considered planned oocyte cryopreservation, does decision regret differ between those who pursued planned oocyte cryopreservation and those who did not?</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A survey was e-mailed to all women who presented for an initial consultation for planned oocyte cryopreservation between January 2016 and December 2021 using a secure REDCap platform. The survey comprised questions on demographics, reproductive planning and the validated Decision Regret Scale (DRS). Univariable and multivariable models were fitted to compare decision regret in the group who had proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation with the group who had not. A sentiment analysis was employed to characterize the emotional tone of respondents.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, 338 respondents met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 178 (52.7%) patients had proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation and 160 (47.3%) had not. The groups were similar in age, race, ethnicity and education. Respondents who had proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation were more likely to be single, to anticipate starting a family at ≥39 years of age, and to consider the use of donor spermatozoa to be an acceptable option. Respondents who had not proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation more frequently reported starting attempts at conception since their consultation. A higher proportion of respondents who had not undergone planned oocyte cryopreservation experienced moderate-to-severe regret with their decision compared with respondents who had undergone at least one cycle of planned oocyte cryopreservation (50% versus 13%; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). There was a correlation between decreasing number of cryopreserved oocytes and increasing DRS score (<em>R</em> = -0.41, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Women who consider planned oocyte cryopreservation but do not proceed with it experience substantial decision regret. The DRS score was highest among respondents who had not proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation, and respondents who had undergone at least one cycle of planned oocyte cryopreservation that resulted in a low number of cryopreserved oocytes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21134,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive biomedicine online","volume":"50 2","pages":"Article 103944"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive biomedicine online","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648324001330","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research question

Among women who considered planned oocyte cryopreservation, does decision regret differ between those who pursued planned oocyte cryopreservation and those who did not?

Design

A survey was e-mailed to all women who presented for an initial consultation for planned oocyte cryopreservation between January 2016 and December 2021 using a secure REDCap platform. The survey comprised questions on demographics, reproductive planning and the validated Decision Regret Scale (DRS). Univariable and multivariable models were fitted to compare decision regret in the group who had proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation with the group who had not. A sentiment analysis was employed to characterize the emotional tone of respondents.

Results

In total, 338 respondents met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 178 (52.7%) patients had proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation and 160 (47.3%) had not. The groups were similar in age, race, ethnicity and education. Respondents who had proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation were more likely to be single, to anticipate starting a family at ≥39 years of age, and to consider the use of donor spermatozoa to be an acceptable option. Respondents who had not proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation more frequently reported starting attempts at conception since their consultation. A higher proportion of respondents who had not undergone planned oocyte cryopreservation experienced moderate-to-severe regret with their decision compared with respondents who had undergone at least one cycle of planned oocyte cryopreservation (50% versus 13%; P < 0.001). There was a correlation between decreasing number of cryopreserved oocytes and increasing DRS score (R = -0.41, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Women who consider planned oocyte cryopreservation but do not proceed with it experience substantial decision regret. The DRS score was highest among respondents who had not proceeded with planned oocyte cryopreservation, and respondents who had undergone at least one cycle of planned oocyte cryopreservation that resulted in a low number of cryopreserved oocytes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
考虑计划性卵母细胞冷冻保存的妇女的决策:决策满意还是遗憾?
研究问题:在考虑有计划的卵母细胞冷冻保存的妇女中,选择和不选择有计划的卵母细胞冷冻保存的妇女的决定后悔有什么不同吗?DesignA调查通过电子邮件发送给2016年1月至2021年12月期间使用安全REDCap平台进行计划卵母细胞冷冻保存初步咨询的所有女性。该调查包括人口统计、生育计划和经过验证的决策后悔量表(DRS)等问题。拟合单变量和多变量模型,比较进行计划卵母细胞冷冻保存组和未进行计划卵母细胞冷冻保存组的决策后悔。采用情绪分析来表征受访者的情绪语调。结果共有338人符合入选标准。其中178例(52.7%)患者进行了计划的卵母细胞冷冻保存,160例(47.3%)患者没有进行计划的卵母细胞冷冻保存。这些群体在年龄、种族、民族和教育程度上相似。计划进行卵母细胞冷冻保存的受访者更有可能是单身,预计在39岁以上开始家庭,并考虑使用供体精子是一种可接受的选择。没有进行计划卵母细胞冷冻保存的应答者在咨询后更频繁地报告开始尝试受孕。与接受过至少一个周期的计划卵母细胞冷冻保存的受访者相比,未接受计划卵母细胞冷冻保存的受访者中有较高比例的人对他们的决定感到中度至重度后悔(50%对13%;P & lt;0.001)。低温保存卵母细胞数量减少与DRS评分升高有相关性(R = -0.41,P <;0.001)。结论考虑计划卵母细胞冷冻保存但未实施的妇女存在重大的决策后悔。DRS评分在未进行计划卵母细胞冷冻保存的应答者中最高,以及至少经历了一个周期计划卵母细胞冷冻保存导致冷冻卵母细胞数量减少的应答者中最高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Reproductive biomedicine online
Reproductive biomedicine online 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
7.50%
发文量
391
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Reproductive BioMedicine Online covers the formation, growth and differentiation of the human embryo. It is intended to bring to public attention new research on biological and clinical research on human reproduction and the human embryo including relevant studies on animals. It is published by a group of scientists and clinicians working in these fields of study. Its audience comprises researchers, clinicians, practitioners, academics and patients. Context: The period of human embryonic growth covered is between the formation of the primordial germ cells in the fetus until mid-pregnancy. High quality research on lower animals is included if it helps to clarify the human situation. Studies progressing to birth and later are published if they have a direct bearing on events in the earlier stages of pregnancy.
期刊最新文献
Rethinking insemination for good-prognosis couples: the emotional and ethical burden of cryopreserved embryos never transferred Effect of abnormal semen parameters on ICSI: morphokinetics and cumulative clinical outcomes of 10,623 embryos Evaluation of a web-based decision aid for couples at risk of transmitting a genetic disease: a randomized controlled trial Is surgery for endometriomas ever indicated? Quantitative characterization of uterine peristalsis propagation throughout the menstrual cycle using a novel intracavitary electrohysterography method
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1