nach oben

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Erschienen in:

01.02.2016 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Awareness of the effects of postponing motherhood among hospital gynecologists: is their knowledge sufficient to offer appropriate help to patients?

verfasst von: Alberto Revelli, Alessandra Razzano, Luisa Delle Piane, Simona Casano, Chiara Benedetto

Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to ascertain the awareness of hospital gynecologists about the effects of woman’s age on spontaneous fecundity and on the efficacy of assisted reproduction techniques (ARTs).

Methods

One hundred fifty-six gynecologists working in public or private Italian hospitals, without specific experience in reproductive medicine and ART, were administered a multiple-choice answer questionnaire addressing (a) the effect of age on woman’s spontaneous fecundity, (b) the tools to estimate the ovarian follicular reserve, and (c) the outcome of ART in women above 40 years.

Results

Approximately half of the interviewed gynecologists indicated the woman’s age limit for successful reproduction between 44 and 50 years; fertility lifespan was believed to be prolonged by oral contraception, pro-fertility medical treatments, or ART. The correct meaning of serum FSH measurement was known by approximately one third of the interviewed doctors. The effectiveness of ART for women of advanced age was overestimated by half of the gynecologists, especially in case of patients having regular cycles and/or small follicles at ultrasound.

Conclusions

Overall, the survey clearly showed that the knowledge of hospital gynecologists about the effects of age on woman’s fertility and ART effectiveness is largely insufficient to offer scientifically correct, helpful information to patients. Properly targeted corrections to academic and periodical educational programs for Ob/Gyn specialists are warranted.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

te Velde ER, Pearson PL. The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8:141–54.CrossRef

Broekmans FJ, Soules MR, Fauser BC. Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Rev. 2009;30:465–93.CrossRefPubMed

Daniluk JC, Koert E. The other side of the fertility coin: a comparison of childless men’s and women’s knowledge of fertility and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:839–46.CrossRefPubMed

Gossett DR, Nayak S, Bhatt S, Bailey SC. What do healthy women know about the consequences of delayed childbearing? J Health Commun. 2013;18 Suppl 1:118–28.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Hampton KD, Mazza D, Newton JM. Fertility-awareness knowledge, attitudes, and practices of women seeking fertility assistance. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69:1076–84.CrossRefPubMed

Baldwin K, Culley L, Hudson N, Mitchell H. Reproductive technology and the life course: current debates and research in social egg freezing. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2014;17:170–9.CrossRef

Potdar N, Gelbaya TA, Nardo LG. Oocyte vitrification in the 21st century and post-warming fertility outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:159–76.CrossRefPubMed

Stoop D, Maes E, Polyzos NP, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Nekkebroeck J. Does oocyte banking for anticipated gamete exhaustion influence future relational and reproductive choices? A follow-up of bankers and non-bankers. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:338–44.CrossRefPubMed

Hvidman HW, Petersen KB, Larsen EC, Macklon KT, Pinborg A, Nyboe Andersen A. Individual fertility assessment and pro-fertility counselling; should this be offered to women and men of reproductive age? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:9–15.CrossRefPubMed

10.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Practice Committee. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee opinion no. 589. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:633–4.CrossRef

11.

Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Esposito F, Oliva A, Zicchina C, Capuzzo D, et al. Ovarian reserve test: an impartial means to resolve the mismatch between chronological and biological age in the assessment of female reproductive chances. Reprod Sci. 2014;21:632–9.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Patrelli TS, Gizzo S, Sianesi N, Levati L, Pezzuto A, Ferrari B, et al. Anti-müllerian hormone serum values and ovarian reserve: can it predict a decrease in fertility after ovarian stimulation by ART cycles? PLoS One. 2012;7:e44571.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

13.

La Marca A, Spada E, Sighinolfi G, Argento C, Tirelli A, Giulini S, et al. Age-specific nomogram for the decline in antral follicle count throughout the reproductive period. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:684–8.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Pellestor F, Andréo B, Arnal F, Humeau C, Demaille J. Mechanisms of non-disjunction in human female meiosis: the co-existence of two modes of malsegregation evidenced by the karyotyping of 1397 in-vitro unfertilized oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2134–45.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Munné S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:628–34.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Noventa M, Manfè S, Oliva A, Gangemi M, et al. Recombinant LH supplementation during IVF cycles with a GnRH-antagonist in estimated poor responders: a cross-matched pilot investigation of the optimal daily dose and timing. Mol Med Rep. 2015;12:4219–29.PubMedCentralPubMed

17.

Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1768–74.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ata B, Kaplan B, Danzer H, Glassner M, Opsahl M, Tan SL, et al. Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related to the number of embryos generated. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24:614–20.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Habbema JD, Eijkemans MJ, Leridon H, Te Velde ER. Realizing a desired family size: when should couples start? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2215–21.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

20.

Schmidt L, Sobotka T, Bentzen JG, Nyboe Andersen A, ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force. Demographic and medical consequences of the postponement of parenthood. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:29–43.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hammarberg K, Setter T, Norman RJ, Holden CA, Michelmore J, Johnson L. Knowledge about factors that influence fertility among Australians of reproductive age: a population-based survey. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:502–7.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Boivin J, Bunting L, Gameiro S. Cassandra’s prophecy: a psychological perspective. Why we need to do more than just tell women. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27:11–4.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Rovei V, Gennarelli G, Lantieri T, Casano S, Revelli A, Massobrio M. Family planning, fertility awareness and knowledge about Italian legislation on assisted reproduction among Italian academic students. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:873–9.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Hashiloni-Dolev Y, Kaplan A, Shkedi-Rafid S. The fertility myth: Israeli students’ knowledge regarding age-related fertility decline and late pregnancies in an era of assisted reproduction technology. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:3045–53.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Virtala A, Vilska S, Huttunen T, Kunttu K. Childbearing, the desire to have children, and awareness about the impact of age on female fertility among Finnish university students. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2011;16:108–15.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Peterson BD, Pirritano M, Tucker L, Lampic C. Fertility awareness and parenting attitudes among American male and female undergraduate university students. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:1375–82.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Nouri K, Huber D, Walch K, Promberger R, Buerkle B, Ott J, et al. Fertility awareness among medical and non-medical students: a case-control study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:94.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

28.

Chelli L, Riquet S, Perrin J, Courbiere B. Should we better inform young women about fertility? A state-of-knowledge study in a student population. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2015;43:128–32.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Lucas N, Rosario R, Shelling A. New Zealand University students’ knowledge of fertility decline in women via natural pregnancy and assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2015:1–7.

30.

Daniluk JC, Koert E. Fertility awareness online: the efficacy of a fertility education website in increasing knowledge and changing fertility beliefs. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:353–63.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

31.

Mazza D, Cannold L, Nagle C, McKay F, Brijnath B. Making decisions about fertility—three facts GPs need to communicate to women. Aust Fam Physician. 2012;41:343–6.PubMed

32.

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:e9–17.

Titel: Awareness of the effects of postponing motherhood among hospital gynecologists: is their knowledge sufficient to offer appropriate help to patients?
verfasst von: Alberto Revelli
Alessandra Razzano
Luisa Delle Piane
Simona Casano
Chiara Benedetto
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0640-x

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Awareness of the effects of postponing motherhood among hospital gynecologists: is their knowledge sufficient to offer appropriate help to patients?