ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
Patient experience of social and medical fertility preservation fully reimbursed in France.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Socio-demographic profiles, motivations and perspectives of women undergoing publicly funded elective fertility preservation: a nationwide multicenter study in France.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Observational
- Ethical perspectives of fertility preservation through experts' opinions.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Planned Oocyte Cryopreservation Following the 2021 French Bioethics Law: Women's Characteristics and Early Clinical Outcomes From a Single-Center Observational Study.Journal of pregnancy · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to review patient experience with social fertility preservation (sFP), as compared to medical fertility preservation (mFP), in a context where sFP is fully reimbursed.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation for mFP between 2017 and 2023 and sFP between 2022 and 2023 at a large ART single center. Additionally, we surveyed patients undergoing sFP and mFP, regarding their experiences, intentions, awareness, and financial consideration.
resultsA total of 97 oocyte retrievals were performed for sFP in 75 women, and 155 were performed in mFP (127 women). Median ages were 36.4 years for sFP and 28.9 years for mFP. Median oocytes retrieved per session were 10 for sFP and 8 for mFP. Ninety-seven percent of of mFP participants were informed by healthcare professionals, while half of sFP participants learned through personal acquaintances. The primary motivation for sFP was a desire for pregnancy while being single. Most respondents in both groups knew that 15-20 oocytes are typically needed for a successful birth. None were aware of the "DuoStim" option, but interest was expressed by most women. Surprisingly, despite full reimbursement for sFP in France, 78% expressed willingness to pay if necessary.
conclusionMany women choose sFP due to concerns about declining fertility, often informed by non-medical sources. Free access to sFP can help mitigate the global decline in natality by allowing women to anticipate age-related fertility decline. This study should be considered by other countries as they may increasingly cover sFP costs in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.