An Examination on Knowledge Levels and Attitudes of Faculty of Health Sciences Students towards Social Oocyte Cryopreservation and Donation

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to identify the knowledge levels and attitudes of faculty of health sciences students towards social oocyte cryopreservation and donation. Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was conducted with 667 university students. The study data were collected by using Google Forms. Findings: The mean age of the participants who agreed to participate in the study was 21.3±2.7 years. 34.3% of the participants stated that they had information about oocyte donation. 51.0% of the participants had positive attitudes towards oocyte donation. 74.5% of the participants reported that they had information about surrogate motherhood. The participants stated that oocyte cryopreservation can be performed mostly by those who will receive cancer/chemotherapy treatment with 30.9%. 82.5% of the participants stated that the most appropriate fertility age is between 25-29 years. Result: The results of this study identified the students' knowledge levels and attitudes toward social oocyte cryopreservation, donation and fertility. The participants emphasise that the healthcare staff should be involved in debating these issues and finding solutions, especially in order to provide accurate information about the technical possibilities of social oocyte cryopreservation and donation, which are new and current in our country, to preserve both fertility, and ultimately delay childbearing.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• student
• social oocyte cryopreservation
• oocyte donation
• knowledge
• attitude

Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Yumurta Dondurma ve Donasyon Konusundaki Bilgi ve Tutumları

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı, sağlık bilimleri fakültesi öğrencilerinin sosyal yumurta dondurma ve yumurta donasyonu konusundaki bilgi ve tutumlarının belirlenmesidir. Yöntem: Araştırma tanımlayıcı tipte olup bir üniversitede öğrenin gören 667 öğrenci ile tamamlanmıştır. Araştırma verileri Google anket yöntemi ile toplanmıştır. Bulgular: Araştırmaya katılmayı kabul eden öğrencilerin “yaş” ortalaması 21,3±2,7 olarak saptanmıştır. Öğrencilerin %34,3’ü yumurta donasyonu hakkında bilgi sahibi olduğunu ifade etmiştir. Öğrencilerin %51,0’ı yumurta donasyonuna olumlu bakmaktadır. Öğrencilerin %74,5’i taşıyıcı annelik hakkında bilgi sahibi olduğunu, ifade etmiştir. Öğrenciler yumurta dondurma işleminin en çok %30,9 ile kanser/kemoterapi tedavisi alacak olanların yapabileceği görüşüne yer vermişlerdir. Öğrencilerin %82,5’i en uygun doğurganlık yaşının 25-29 yaş aralığı olduğunu ifade etmişlerdir. Sonuç: Bu araştırma öğrencilerin sosyal yumurta dondurma, donasyon ve doğurganlık hakkındaki düşüncelerini ortaya koymuştur. Özellikle ülkemizde yeni ve güncel olan sosyal dondurma ve donasyon ile ilgili konuların hem fertilite hem de doğurganlığı korumaya yönelik teknik olanaklar hakkında doğru bilgi vermek ve nihayetinde çocuk doğurmayı ertelemek için sağlık camiasının bu soruları tartışmaya ve cevaplamaya dahil olması gerektiğini vurgulamaktadırlar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• öğrenci
• sosyal yumurta dondurma
• yumurta donasyonu
• bilgi
• tutum

Kaynakça

1. Alteri A, Pisaturo V, Nogueira D, D’Angelo A. Elective egg freezing without medical indications. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand 2019;98:647–52.
2. ESHRE. Female Fertility Preservation Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embriology. 2020. Available online: https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal/Guidelines/Female-fertility-preservation
3. Anderson RA, Davies MC, Lavery SA, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Elective egg freezing for non-medical reasons: Scientific Impact Paper No. 63. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol 2020;127:e113–21.
4. Nasab S, Ulin L, Nkele C, Shah J, Abdallah ME, Sibai BM. Elective egg freezing: What is the vision of women around the globe? Future Sci. OA 2020;6:FSO468.
5. Shkedi-Rafid S, Hashiloni-Dolev Y. Egg freezing for age-related fertility decline: Preventive medicine or a further medicalization of reproduction? Analyzing the new Israeli policy. Fertil. Steril 2011;96:291–4.
6. Lewis EI, Missmer SA, Farland LV, Ginsburg ES. Public support in the United States for elective oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil. Steril 2016;106:1183–9.
7. 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.
8. Bachmann G, MacArthur TA, Khanuja K. Need for comprehensive counseling in women requesting oocyte cryopreservation. J. Womens Health 2018;27:227–30.

9. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Essential elements of ınformed consent for elective oocyte cryopreservation: A Pactice Committee opinion. Fertil. Steril 2008;90(Suppl. S5):S134–5.
10. International Federation of Fertility Societies’ Surveillance (IFFS) 2019: Global Trends in Reproductive Policy and Practice, 8th Edition. Glob. Reprod. Health 2019;4:e29.
11. Resmi Gazete. Üremeye Yardımcı Tedavi Uygulamaları ve Üremeye Yardımcı Tedavi Merkezleri Hakkında Yönetmelik (30.09.2014) (Sayı: 29135) Erişim: http:// www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2014/09/20140930
12. Larsen EC, Bentin-Ley U, Knudsen UB. [Oocyt donation]. Ugeskr Laeger 2021;183(48):V04210368. Danish.
13. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978;2:366
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology 2015. Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report 2017.
15. Tsai MC, Takeuchi T, Bedford JM, Reis MM, Rosenwaks Z, Palermo GD. Opinion: Alternative sources of gametes: reality or science fiction? Hum Reprod 2000;15(5):988-98.
16. American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Mature oocyte cryopreservation: A Guideline. Fertility and Sterility 2013;99(1):37-43.
17. Meissner C, Schippert C, von Versen-Höynck F. Awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of infertility, fertility assessment, and assisted reproductive technologies in the era of oocyte freezing among female and male university students. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2016;33(6):719-29.
18. Tan SQ, Tan AWK, Lau MSK, Tan HH. Social oocyte freezing: A survey among Singaporean female medical students. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res 2014;40(5):1345-52.
19. Daşıkan Z, Taner A. Hemşirelik/ebelik öğrencilerinin doğurganlığın korunmasına yönelik sosyal yumurta dondurma konusundaki bilgi ve tutumları. Journal of Academic Research in Nursing 2020;6(3):395-403.
20. Aslan MM. Üniversite Hastanesine Başvuran Fertil ve İnfertil Kadınların Yumurta Donasyonu Hakkındaki Düşünceleri. Uzmanlık Tezi. 2016. Edirne.
21. Crawford NM, Steiner AZ. Age-related infertility. Obstetetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 2015;42:15–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2014.09.005.
22. Stoop D, Cobo A, Silber S. Fertility preservation for age-related fertility decline. Lancet 2014;384:1311–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61261-7.
23. Durchschnittliches Alter der Mutter bei der Geburt des Kindes 2014. https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Bevoelkerung/Geburten/Tabellen/GeburtenMutterAlterBundeslaender.html
24. Live births in England and Wales by characteristics of mother. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/characteristics-of-Mother-1--england-and-wales/2013/stb-characteristics-of-mother-1--2013.html. Accessed June 12, 2024.
25. Mean age of women at birth of first child. Available at: http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/dialog/Saveshow.asp?lang=1. Accessed June 01, 2024.
26. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü (2019). Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması, 2018. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Nüfus Etütleri Enstitüsü, Sağlık Bakanlığı Ana Çocuk Sağlığı ve Aile Planlaması Genel Müdürlüğü, Başbakanlık Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı Müsteşarlığı ve TÜBİTAK, Ankara, Türkiye. Available at: https://hips.hacettepe.edu.tr/tr/2018_turkiye_nufus_ve_saglik_arastirmasi-55. Accessed June 15, 2024.
27. Wer bleibt kinderlos? Sozialstrukturelle Daten zur Kinderlosigkeit von Frauen und Männern. http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.42980.de/dp473.pdf.
28. Pritchard N, Kirkman M, Hammarberg K, McBain J, Agresta F, Bayly C, Fisher J. Characteristics and circumstances of women in Australia who cryopreserved their oocytes for non-medical indications, J Reprod Infant Psychol 2017;35(2):108-18.
29. Tozzo P, Fassina A, Nespeca P, Spigarolo G, Caenazzo L. Understanding social oocyte freezing in Italy: A scoping survey on university female students’ awareness and attitudes. Life Sci Soc Policy 2013;15(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s40504-019-0092-7.
30. Tozzo P, Fassina A, Caenazzo L. Young people’s awareness on biobanking and DNA profiling: Results of a questionnaire administered to Italian university students. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2017;13:9. doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0055-9.
31. Argyle CE, Harper JC, Davies MC. Oocyte cryopreservation: Where are we now? Hum Reprod Update 2016;22:440–9. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw007.
32. Kılıç S. Uçar M, Türker T, Koçak N, Aydın G, Asiye Günay A, Gençtürk D. GATA Hemşirelik Yüksek Okulu öğrencilerinde taşıyıcı anneliğe yönelik tutumun belirlenmesi. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi 2009;51(4):216-9.
33. Schröder AK, Diedrich K, Ludwig M, Attitudes toward oocyte donation and surrogate motherhood are strongly influenced by own experiences. Zentralbl Gynakol 2004;126:24-31.