Eggsurance? A randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for elective egg freezing.

STUDY QUESTION: Does a purpose-designed Decision Aid for women considering elective egg freezing (EEF) impact decisional conflict and other decision-related outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER: The Decision Aid reduces decisional conflict, prepares women for decision-making, and does not cause distress. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Elective egg-freezing decisions are complex, with 78% of women reporting high decisional conflict. Decision Aids are used to support complex health decisions. We developed an online Decision Aid for women considering EEF and demonstrated that it was acceptable and useful in Phase 1 testing. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A single-blind, two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial was carried out. Target sample size was 286 participants. Randomization was 1:1 to the control (existing website information) or intervention (Decision Aid plus existing website information) group and stratified by Australian state/territory and prior IVF specialist consultation. Participants were recruited between September 2020 and March 2021 with outcomes recorded over 12 months. Data were collected using online surveys and data collection was completed in March 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Females aged ≥18 years, living in Australia, considering EEF, proficient in English, and with internet access were recruited using multiple methods including social media posts, Google advertising, newsletter/noticeboard posts, and fertility clinic promotion. After completing the baseline survey, participants were emailed their allocated website link(s). Follow-up surveys were sent at 6 and 12 months. Primary outcome was decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Other outcomes included distress (Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale), knowledge about egg freezing and female age-related infertility (study-specific measure), whether a decision was made, preparedness to decide about egg freezing (Preparation for Decision-Making Scale), informed choice (Multi-Dimensional Measure of Informed Choice), and decision regret (Decision Regret Scale). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall, 306 participants (mean age 30 years; SD: 5.2) were randomized (intervention n = 150, control n = 156). Decisional Conflict Scale scores were significantly lower at 12 months (mean score difference: -6.99 [95% CI: -12.96, -1.02], P = 0.022) for the intervention versus control group after adjusting for baseline decisional conflict. At 6 months, the intervention group felt significantly more prepared to decide about EEF than the control (mean score difference: 9.22 [95% CI: 2.35, 16.08], P = 0.009). At 12 months, no group differences were observed in distress (mean score difference: 0.61 [95% CI: -3.72, 4.93], P = 0.783), knowledge (mean score difference: 0.23 [95% CI: -0.21, 0.66], P = 0.309), or whether a decision was made (relative risk: 1.21 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.64], P = 0.212). No group differences were found in informed choice (relative risk: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.81, 1.25], P = 0.983) or decision regret (median score difference: -5.00 [95% CI: -15.30, 5.30], P = 0.337) amongst participants who had decided about EEF by 12 months (intervention n = 48, control n = 45). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Unknown participant uptake and potential sampling bias due to the recruitment methods used and restrictions caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Some outcomes had small sample sizes limiting the inferences made. The use of study-specific or adapted validated measures may impact the reliability of some results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate a Decision Aid for EEF. The Decision Aid reduced decisional conflict and improved women's preparation for decision making. The tool will be made publicly available and can be tailored for international use. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Decision Aid was developed with funding from the Royal Women's Hospital Foundation and McBain Family Trust. The study was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant APP1163202, awarded to M. Hickey, M. Peate, R.J. Norman, and R. Hart (2019-2021). S.S., M.P., D.K., and S.B. were supported by the NHMRC Project Grant APP1163202 to perform this work. R.H. is Medical Director of Fertility Specialists of Western Australia and National Medical Director of City Fertility. He has received grants from MSD, Merck-Serono, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study and is a shareholder of CHA-SMG. R.L. is Director of Women's Health Melbourne (Medical Practice), ANZSREI Executive Secretary (Honorary), RANZCOG CREI Subspecialty Committee Member (Honorary), and a Fertility Specialist at Life Fertility Clinic Melbourne and Royal Women's Hospital Public Fertility Service. R.A.A. has received grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study. M.H., K.H., and R.J.N. have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620001032943. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 11 August 2020. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 29 September 2020.

The development and phase 1 evaluation of a Decision Aid for elective egg freezing.

BACKGROUND: Elective egg freezing decisions are complex. We developed a Decision Aid for elective egg freezing and conducted a phase 1 study to evaluate its acceptability and utility for decision-making. METHODS: The online Decision Aid was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards and evaluated using a pre/post survey design. Twenty-six Australian women aged 18-45 years, interested in receiving elective egg freezing information, proficient in English, and with access to the internet were recruited using social media and university newsletters. Main outcomes were: acceptability of the Decision Aid; feedback on the Decision Aid design and content; concern raised by the Decision Aid, and; utility of the Decision Aid as measured by scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale and on a study-specific scale assessing knowledge about egg freezing and age-related infertility. RESULTS: Most participants found the Decision Aid acceptable (23/25), balanced (21/26), useful for explaining their options (23/26), and for reaching a decision (18/26). Almost all reported satisfaction with the Decision Aid (25/26) and the level of guidance  it provided (25/26). No participant reported serious concerns about the Decision Aid, and most would recommend it to other women considering elective egg freezing (22/26). Median Decisional Conflict Scale score decreased from 65/100 (Interquartile range: 45-80) pre-Decision Aid to 7.5/100 (Interquartile range: 0-37.5) post-Decision Aid review (p < 0.001). Median knowledge score increased from 8.5/14 (Interquartile range: 7-11) pre-Decision Aid to 11/14 (Interquartile range: 10-12) post-Decision Aid review (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This elective egg freezing Decision Aid appears acceptable and useful for decision-making. It improved knowledge, reduced decisional conflict and did not raise serious concerns. The Decision Aid will be further evaluated using a prospective randomised control trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: ACTRN12618001685202 (retrospectively registered: 12 October 2018).

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

PURPOSE: Identifying the information and decision support needs of women interested in receiving planned oocyte cryopreservation (POC) information. METHODS: An 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. RESULTS: Of 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). CONCLUSION: Women 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.

Systematic protocol and methodology needed for pre-procedure counselling of elective egg freezing patients in Singapore.

Upon legalization of social egg freezing in Singapore from 2023 onwards, compulsory pre-procedure counselling is mandated for all prospective patients to enable informed choice about whether to undergo the procedure. Being a newly introduced medical procedure in Singapore, there are currently no clear directives on what pre-procedure counselling for elective egg freezing should entail. Due to pervasive media and internet influences, prospective egg freezing patients could be misled into believing that the procedure represents a guaranteed path to future motherhood, contrary to statements by professional bodies such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the British Fertility Society (BFS). Hence, comprehensive counselling is recommended to provide women with evidence-based information (e.g. success rates of social egg freezing for women of their age) to ensure they make informed decisions and to avoid possible decision regret. For this purpose, a systematic protocol and methodology for pre-procedure counselling of women considering elective egg freezing was developed, incorporating flowcharts and decision trees that are specifically tailored to the unique sociocultural values and legal restrictions in Singapore. Questions relating to the why, what, how, where and when of the egg freezing procedure should be addressed, which could serve as a roadmap to facilitate informed decision-making by women considering elective egg freezing.

Randomized control trial of a decision aid for women considering elective egg freezing: The Eggsurance study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of elective egg freezing has increased globally. The decision to freeze eggs is complex, and detailed, unbiased information is needed. To address this, we developed an online Decision Aid for women considering elective egg freezing. Decision Aids are the standard of care to support complex health decisions. OBJECTIVES: This study will measure the impact of the Decision Aid on decision-making (e.g. decisional conflict, engagement in decision-making, distress, and decision delay) and decision quality (e.g. knowledge, level of informed choice, and regret). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A single-blinded two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Women considering elective egg freezing will be recruited using social media, newsletters, and fertility clinics. Data will be collected at baseline (recruitment), 6-month, and 12-month post-randomization. The primary hypothesis is that the intervention (Decision Aid plus Victorian Assisted Reproductive Technology Authority website) will reduce decisional conflict (measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale) at 12 months more than control (Victorian Assisted Reproductive Technology Authority website only). Secondary outcomes include engagement in decision-making (Perceived Involvement in Care Scale), distress (Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale), decision delay, knowledge, informed choice (Multi-dimensional Measure of Informed Choice), and decisional regret (Decisional Regret Scale). ETHICS: The study was approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (Ethics ID: 2056457). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants prior to enrolment. DISCUSSION: This is the first international randomized controlled trial that aims to investigate the effect of an elective egg freezing Decision Aid on decision-related outcomes (e.g. decisional conflict, informed choice, and regret). It is anticipated that participants who receive the Decision Aid will have better decision and health outcomes. REGISTRATION DETAILS: ACTRN12620001032943: Comparing different information resources on the process and quality of decision-making in women considering elective egg freezing.