Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37058261›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023

Information and decision support needs: A survey of women interested in receiving planned oocyte cryopreservation information.

Sherine Sandhu, Martha Hickey, Sabine Braat, Karin Hammarberg, Raelia Lew, Jane Fisher, William Ledger, Michelle Peate, Eggsurance Collaborative Group

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Information about elective egg freezing on instagram reels: a content review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Review
  4. Nesting the Eggs on Another Day: Social Egg Freezing.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sherine SandhuDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. sherine.sandhu@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3294-3340
Martha HickeyDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Sabine BraatCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Karin HammarbergSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Raelia LewDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Jane FisherGlobal and Women's Health Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
William LedgerSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Michelle PeateDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Eggsurance Collaborative Group
Royal Women's Hospital · AUMonash University · AURoyal Hospital for Women · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/W019140/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIdentifying the information and decision support needs of women interested in receiving planned oocyte cryopreservation (POC) information.

methodsAn online survey of Australian women, aged 18-45, interested in receiving POC information, proficient in English, with internet access. The survey covered POC information sources, information delivery preferences, POC and age-related infertility knowledge (study-specific scale), Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), and time spent considering POC. Target sample size (n=120) was determined using a precision-based method.

resultsOf 332 participants, 249 (75%) had considered POC, whilst 83 (25%) had not. Over half (54%) had searched for POC information. Fertility clinic websites were predominately used (70%). Most (73%) believed women should receive POC information between ages 19-30 years. Preferred information providers were fertility specialists (85%) and primary care physicians (81%). Other methods rated most useful to deliver POC information were online. Mean knowledge score was 8.9/14 (SD:2.3). For participants who had considered POC, mean DCS score was 57.1/100 (SD:27.2) and 78% had high decisional conflict (score >37.5). In regression, lower DCS scores were associated with every 1-point increase in knowledge score (-2.4; 95% CI [-3.9, -0.8]), consulting an IVF specialist (-17.5; [-28.0, -7.1]), and making a POC decision (-18.4; [-27.5, -9.3]). Median time to decision was 24-months (IQR: 12.0-36.0) (n=53).

conclusionWomen interested in receiving POC information had knowledge gaps, and wanted to be informed about the option by age 30 years from healthcare professionals and online resources. Most women who considered using POC had high decisional conflict indicating a need for decision support.

Indexed as

Fertility PreservationAnimalsAustraliaCryopreservationFemaleHumansOocytesSurveys and Questionnairesdecision makingdecision supportElective egg freezingfertility preservationinformation needsplanned oocyte cryopreservation

Identifiers

PMID37058261
PMCPMC10101825
OpenAlexW4365478916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.