Family intentions and personal considerations on postponing childbearing in childless cohabiting and single women aged 35-43 seeking fertility assessment and counselling
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Standard
Family intentions and personal considerations on postponing childbearing in childless cohabiting and single women aged 35-43 seeking fertility assessment and counselling. / Birch Petersen, K; Hvidman, H W; Sylvest, R; Pinborg, A; Larsen, Elisabeth C; Macklon, K T; Andersen, A Nyboe; Schmidt, L.
In: Human Reproduction, Vol. 30, No. 11, 2015, p. 2563-2574.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Family intentions and personal considerations on postponing childbearing in childless cohabiting and single women aged 35-43 seeking fertility assessment and counselling
AU - Birch Petersen, K
AU - Hvidman, H W
AU - Sylvest, R
AU - Pinborg, A
AU - Larsen, Elisabeth C
AU - Macklon, K T
AU - Andersen, A Nyboe
AU - Schmidt, L
N1 - © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - STUDY QUESTION: What characterizes childless women aged 35 years and above seeking fertility assessment and counselling in relation to their reproduction and are there significant differences between single and cohabiting women?SUMMARY ANSWER: Despite the women's advanced age and knowledge of the age-related decline in fecundity, 70% of the single women sought fertility assessment and counselling to gain knowledge regarding the possibility of postponing pregnancy.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Recent studies have indicated an increasing demand for ovarian reserve testing in women without any known fertility problem to obtain knowledge on their reproductive lifespan and pro-fertility advice. Women postpone their first pregnancy, and maternal age at first birth has increased in western societies over the past two to four decades. Postponed childbearing implies a higher rate of involuntary childlessness, smaller families than desired and declining fertility rates.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: Baseline data from a cross-sectional cohort study of 340 women aged 35-43 years examined at the Fertility Assessment and Counselling (FAC) Clinic at Copenhagen University Hospital from 2011 to 2014. The FAC Clinic was initiated to provide individual fertility assessment and counselling.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible women were childless and at least 35 years of age. All completed a web-based questionnaire before and after the consultation including socio-demographic, reproductive, medical, lifestyle and behavioural factors. Consultation by a fertility specialist included transvaginal ultrasound, full reproductive history and AMH measurement.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The study comprised 140 cohabiting and 200 single women. The majority (82%) were well-educated and in employment. Their mean age was 37.4 years. Nonetheless, the main reasons for attending were to obtain knowledge regarding the possibility of postponing pregnancy (63%) and a concern about their fecundity (52%). The majority in both groups (60%) wished for two or more children. The women listed their ideal age at birth of first child and last child as 33 (±4.7) years and 39 (±3.5) years, respectively. Of the single women, 70% would accept use of sperm donation compared with 25% of the cohabiting women (P < 0.001). In general, 45% considered oocyte vitrification for social reasons, yet only 15% were positive towards oocyte donation. The two groups were comparable regarding lifestyle factors, number of previous sexual partners, pregnancies, and ovarian reserve parameters.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The women in the present study were conscious of the risk of infertility with increasing age and attended the FAC Clinic due to a concern about their remaining reproductive lifespan, which in combination with their high educational level could impair the generalizability to the background population.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results indicate that in general women overestimate their own reproductive capacity and underestimate the risk of future childlessness with the continuous postponement of pregnancies.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The FAC Clinic is a part of the ReproSund and ReproHigh collaboration that is 50% co-financed by EU-regional funding. This study also received funding through the Capital Region Research Fund. The authors have no conflict of interest.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.
AB - STUDY QUESTION: What characterizes childless women aged 35 years and above seeking fertility assessment and counselling in relation to their reproduction and are there significant differences between single and cohabiting women?SUMMARY ANSWER: Despite the women's advanced age and knowledge of the age-related decline in fecundity, 70% of the single women sought fertility assessment and counselling to gain knowledge regarding the possibility of postponing pregnancy.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Recent studies have indicated an increasing demand for ovarian reserve testing in women without any known fertility problem to obtain knowledge on their reproductive lifespan and pro-fertility advice. Women postpone their first pregnancy, and maternal age at first birth has increased in western societies over the past two to four decades. Postponed childbearing implies a higher rate of involuntary childlessness, smaller families than desired and declining fertility rates.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: Baseline data from a cross-sectional cohort study of 340 women aged 35-43 years examined at the Fertility Assessment and Counselling (FAC) Clinic at Copenhagen University Hospital from 2011 to 2014. The FAC Clinic was initiated to provide individual fertility assessment and counselling.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible women were childless and at least 35 years of age. All completed a web-based questionnaire before and after the consultation including socio-demographic, reproductive, medical, lifestyle and behavioural factors. Consultation by a fertility specialist included transvaginal ultrasound, full reproductive history and AMH measurement.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The study comprised 140 cohabiting and 200 single women. The majority (82%) were well-educated and in employment. Their mean age was 37.4 years. Nonetheless, the main reasons for attending were to obtain knowledge regarding the possibility of postponing pregnancy (63%) and a concern about their fecundity (52%). The majority in both groups (60%) wished for two or more children. The women listed their ideal age at birth of first child and last child as 33 (±4.7) years and 39 (±3.5) years, respectively. Of the single women, 70% would accept use of sperm donation compared with 25% of the cohabiting women (P < 0.001). In general, 45% considered oocyte vitrification for social reasons, yet only 15% were positive towards oocyte donation. The two groups were comparable regarding lifestyle factors, number of previous sexual partners, pregnancies, and ovarian reserve parameters.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The women in the present study were conscious of the risk of infertility with increasing age and attended the FAC Clinic due to a concern about their remaining reproductive lifespan, which in combination with their high educational level could impair the generalizability to the background population.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results indicate that in general women overestimate their own reproductive capacity and underestimate the risk of future childlessness with the continuous postponement of pregnancies.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The FAC Clinic is a part of the ReproSund and ReproHigh collaboration that is 50% co-financed by EU-regional funding. This study also received funding through the Capital Region Research Fund. The authors have no conflict of interest.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.
U2 - 10.1093/humrep/dev237
DO - 10.1093/humrep/dev237
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 26401054
VL - 30
SP - 2563
EP - 2574
JO - Human Reproduction
JF - Human Reproduction
SN - 0268-1161
IS - 11
ER -
ID: 144739645