Perceptions, outcomes, and regret following social egg freezing in the UK; a cross‐sectional survey. (25th November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jones, Benjamin P.; Kasaven, Lorraine; L'Heveder, Ariadne; Jalmbrant, Maria; Green, Joy; Makki, Mahmoud; Odia, Rabi; Morris, Guy; Bracewell Milnes, Timothy; Saso, Srdjan; Serhal, Paul; Ben Nagi, Jara
• Is Part Of: Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. Volume 99:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 324
• Page End: 332
• Publication Date: 2019-11-25
• Subjects: fertility preservation -- infertility -- oocyte cryopreservation -- perceptions -- social egg freezing -- vitrification; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Pregnancy -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13763
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-6349

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Social egg freezing enhances reproductive autonomy by empowering women with the capacity to delay their childbearing years, while preserving the opportunity to maintain biological relation with subsequent offspring. However, age‐related obstetric complications, economic implications and the risk of unsuccessful future treatment make it a controversial option. Despite the upward trend in women electively cryopreserving their eggs, there is limited data about the women's perceptions, having undergone the process. The aim of this study was to investigate the motivations of women who have undergone social egg freezing, identify their perceptions following treatment, and assess potential feelings of regret. Material and methods: This cross‐sectional survey, based at a fertility clinic in the UK, used an electronic questionnaire to assess the motivations and perceptions of women who underwent social egg freezing between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2018. Results: One hundred questionnaires were distributed, and 85 women responded (85% response rate). The most frequent reason for freezing oocytes was not having a partner with 56 (70%) women saying it "definitely" influenced their decision. The majority of women (83%; n = 68) knew there was a chance of treatment failure in the future and that a live birth could not be guaranteed. More than half (n = 39; 51%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the 10‐year UK storage limit is fair. One‐third of respondents (n = 17; 33%) felt the storage time should be indefinite and 29% (n = 15) believed it should be up to the age of 50. Twenty percent (n = 15) of the women who underwent social egg freezing have successfully had a baby or are currently pregnant, half (n = 8; 53%) of whom conceived spontaneously and a quarter (n = 4; 26%) used their stored oocytes. In all, 91% (n = 73) had no regrets over their decision to undergo social egg freezing. Conclusions: We demonstrate herein important and novel insights into the motivations and perceptions of women from a UK population who have undergone social egg freezing. Despite potential physical, psychological, and financial burdens, only a small minority of women experience regret after social egg freezing. We also highlight clear discontent with the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority storage limit among social egg freezers in the UK.