O-033 A randomised control trial of an online decision-aid for women considering elective egg-freezing

Abstract Study question Does a Decision-Aid for those considering elective egg-freezing impact decisional conflict, the decision-making process, and quality of decision made, compared to existing information? Summary answer The significantly reduced conflict improved preparedness decision-making. What is known already Elective offers women potential extend their reproductive years. freeze eggs complex, our previous data shows that 78% had high (uncertainty) when they considered egg-freezing. Decision-Aids are gold-standard supporting complex health-related decisions. They have been shown reduce improve knowledge, risk perception, alignment with personal values, standard care alone across range health conditions. We developed an online support design, size, duration A single-blinded, two-arm parallel group Randomised Control Trial. Participants were recruited September 2020-March 2021 (target n = 286). Randomisation was 1:1 intervention (Decision-Aid plus information) or control (existing information only) group, stratified by Australian state/territory prior consultation IVF specialist about Existing Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority website. Online surveys completed at recruitment (baseline), 6, 12-months. Participants/materials, setting, methods aged ≥18 years, egg-freezing, proficient in English, internet access using various including social media, Google advertising, newsletters, clinic referrals. completing baseline survey randomised (intervention 150, 156) emailed allocated resources. Subsequent 6 12-months post-randomisation. Surveys covered (primary outcome), distress, fertility made/not decision-making, informed choice, regret. Main results role chance Of 306 participants (mean age=30 SD: 5.2), 50% single 65% worked professional occupations. At 6-months, substantially more prepared than (Preparation Decision-Making Scale; mean score difference: 9.22 [95% CI: 2.35, 16.08], p 0.009). Overall, 77% primary outcome 113, 124). Between 12-months, reduction Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) scores greater -6.99 -12.96, -1.02], 0.022), whilst there no differences distress (Depression Anxiety Stress 0.61 -3.72, 4.93], 0.783), knowledge (study-specific scale; 0.23 -0.21, 0.66], 0.309) whether made (odds ratio: 1.95 (95% 0.67, 5.69), 0.221). No observed between groups choice (Multi-Dimensional Measure Informed Choice; relative risk: 1.00 0.81, 1.25]) regret (Decisional Regret median -5.00 -15.30, 5.30]) who 48, 45). Limitations, reasons caution total eligible population reached cannot be calculated due broad used. Adaption some scales relevancy may validity. Biases from self-selection use self-reported possible, small sample sizes limiting inferences made. Wider implications findings This first study evaluate effectiveness It demonstrates benefit women’s Given these results, will publicly available. There also adapt tool international relevancy. Trial registration number ACTRN12620001032943