To evaluate couples’ perceptions of frozen embryos and their effect on fertility treatment decision making.
Design
Longitudinal, prospective, qualitative interview study of couples.
Materials and Methods
Members of 37 couples participated in up to 6 semi-structured interviews over 12 months after scheduling an initial consultation with an infertility specialist (IS) - either a reproductive endocrinologist or urologist. Patients and their partners were interviewed separately by trained independent interviewers and were asked about their views on autologous cryopreservation at one-week and 12-months post consult. This is a secondary analysis of the interview data. Facilitated by NVivo analysis software, we categorized each participant’s comments into four categories and provide illustrative quotes for each. An exploratory study using qualitative data, this work was intended to generate hypotheses and inform future research directions rather than to make statistical comparisons.
Results
Initially, many participants expressed that they had no strong feelings regarding the use of autologous cryopreserved embryos, often admitting that they were unaware of what they were, but some participants did express strictly positive, strictly negative, or both positive and negative views (Table). At 12 months, more patients and their partners were familiar with the concept, and more participants discussed specific risks and benefits associated with freezing embryos and their storage. Those who opposed cryopreservation often cited moral or religious objections, but very few had strong enough negative views about embryo disposition to deter them from considering IVF as a treatment option. For most, other considerations, especially finances, were the primary barrier to pursuing IVF.
Conclusions
Most patients and partners did not have strong views about autologous cryopreserved embryos after an initial appointment with an IS. At 12 months, stronger attitudes were apparent, but very few had strong enough negative views about embryo disposition to deter them from considering IVF as a treatment option.
Elizabeth Ann Duthie, Alexandra L. Cooper, Joseph B. Davis, Kate D. Schoyer, Kathryn E. Flynn
Liz Duthie, Beth Duthie, Betsy Duthie, E Duthie, Alex Cooper, A Cooper, Joe Davis, Joey Davis, J Davis, Catherine Schoyer, Katherine Schoyer, Kathryn Schoyer, K Schoyer, Kathy Flynn, Kate Flynn, K Flynn
DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.334 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.334 Adenuga et al. 2017, Adenuga 2017
Related articles
Advocacy and Public Understanding · Public Awareness
Parnell TA et al., 2026·Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine
This study examined public attitudes toward restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) using secondary analysis and comparative reporting of two independent surveys conducted in the United States. It also explored preferences among individuals with fertility issues and the general population’s views on treatment options. A secondary analysis was conducted using data from two nationally representative online surveys, designed and administered by organizations independent of the researchers, whose samples demographically reflected the U.S. adult population. The surveys—conducted by J.L. Partners (N=1002) and McLaughlin & Associates (N=1000)—assessed familiarity, acceptance, and attitudes toward IVF and RRM. The J.L. Partners survey focused on IVF, including medical risks, creation and use of embryos, preimplantation genetic testing, arguments for government oversight of IVF, and overall attitudes toward IVF. The McLaughlin survey focused on comparative descriptions of IVF and RRM. Pearson’s Chi-Square tests of independence were used to assess differences in response distributions across demographic subgroups and between survey items of interest. Findings: Overall, there was strong consistency of responses to items that were similar in the two surveys. Approximately 80% supported IVF initially, although both surveys found respondents to have limited knowledge about IVF procedures. In contrast, 33% supported RRM initially, with 43% having never heard of RRM. After learning more about the characteristics of RRM and IVF approaches, as presented within the surveys, preference shifted toward approaches consistent with RRM (e.g., 69% preference for an approach for natural fertilization in a woman’s body vs. 17% for fertilization in a lab). Respondents prioritized baby health (74%) over cost (13%) and time to conceive (6%). Many IVF patients were concerned about undiagnosed health issues and being rushed into IVF. Overall, 70% wanted treatments that addressed underlying causes; nearly half were unaware of any medical risks of IVF. Stated support for IVF declined by 10% overall after presentation of medical risks, questions about the creation and use of embryos and genetic testing, and arguments to support government oversight of IVF. Both surveys showed strong support for patient access to full information about treatments and treatment processes. While IVF is widely accepted, these national survey data suggest preferences for fertility treatments that prioritize diagnosis and restoration of natural reproductive health, which is the focus of restorative reproductive medicine. Comprehensive assessment, restoration of healthy function, transparency regarding treatment processes, and sensitivity to ethical concerns in patient care reflect important public values. Greater awareness and public education, improved consent, more research, and ongoing surveys are needed to inform public health strategies and meet patient needs in fertility care.
Today in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widespread and important technique of reproductive medicine. When the technique was first used, it was considered ethically controversial. This is the first study conducted of adult IVF-offspring in order to learn about their ethical opinions and personal attitudes towards this medical technology. We recruited the participants from the first cases of in vitro fertilisation in Germany at the Gynaecological Clinic of the University Hospital Erlangen. Our qualitative interview study consisted of in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 16 adults who had been conceived by IVF. Our data was analysed with methods of Grounded Theory. For these adults, the most important factor influencing their personal attitudes towards IVF was the knowledge that they were deeply wanted children. The artificiality of their conception seemed irrelevant for their ethical opinion. All participants mentioned that it was important for them to be informed about the circumstances of their conception by their parents. IVF seems to be a medical technique which, although it affects intimate aspects of human existence, can be integrated into the lives of the affected persons without any great difficulties. The findings suggest that parents should inform their children about their fertilisation at an early age and as part of a process over time, not only on a single occasion. Physicians should advise IVF-parents accordingly.
To provide an in-depth analysis of offspring attitudes toward their means of conception and the practice of sperm donation in the United States. Survey-based study using a 46-item questionnaire. Eighty-five adult offspring of sperm donation. Participants were recruited through an Internet-based support group for adults conceived through sperm donation. Eighty-five of them completed the questionnaire provided through a link to another Internet site. Responses to a 46-item questionnaire. A majority of offspring learned of their conception at age >18 years during a planned conversation; had no information about their donor; viewed their donor as their "biological father"; had searched for and wanted identifying information on their donor and half-siblings; and supported the provision of extensive nonidentifying information or identity release in the practice of sperm donation. Participant attitudes toward their means of conception were evenly distributed from "very good" to "very bad." Other descriptive information on participants contributed to an understanding of their attitudes. Participant ratings of their conception were evenly distributed from "very good" to "very bad." Most believed that identifying information should be provided to recipients and that they themselves would not participate in the practice of gamete donation.
Perrotta M et al., 2022·Sociol Health Illn·
Open Access
With the increasing offer of fertility treatment by a largely privatised sector, which has involved the proliferation of treatment add-ons lacking evidence of effectiveness, In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) patients are expected to make informed choices on what to include in their treatment. Drawing on interviews with 51 individuals undergoing fertility treatment, this article explores patients' approaches to medical evidence interpretation and its role in their decisions to include add-ons. While most IVF patients share understandings of what counts as medical evidence, our findings show how their approaches also differ. Our analysis focuses on how patients negotiate the notion of medical evidence and its relation to other forms of experience or knowledge. We present four different approaches to evidence in (1) delegating evaluations of evidence to experts; (2) critically assessing available evidence; (3) acknowledging the process of making evidence; and (4) contextualising evidence in their lived experience of infertility. We suggest that patients' choice to include add-ons is not due to a lack of information on or understanding of evidence, but rather should be interpreted as part of the complexity of patients' experiences of infertility.