Acceptance and willingness-to-pay for oocyte cryopreservation in medical versus age-related fertility preservation scenarios among Swedish female university students

Oocytes can be effectively cryopreserved and stored for future use in in-vitro fertilisation. Oocyte cryopreservation (OC) can therefore mitigate different threats to female fertility, but attitudes and policies often seem more favourable in medical rather than age-related fertility preservation scenarios. The value of OC for potential candidates may be perceived differently depending on the indications, although relevant empirical data are lacking. An adequately powered sample of Swedish female university students (n = 270; median age 25; range 19–35) were randomly delivered a medical (n = 130) or age-related (n = 140) fertility preservation scenario within an online survey. Sociodemographic factors, reproductive experiences, and awareness about OC were not significantly different between the groups. Differences in four outcomes were studied: proportions of respondents (1) positive to the use of OC, (2) positive to public funding for OC, or (3) open to considering OC; and (4) willingness-to-pay (WTP) for OC, measured in thousand Swedish krona (K SEK) through contingent valuation. There were no significant differences in the proportions of respondents positive to the use of OC (medical: 96%; age-related: 93%) or open to consider it (medical: 90%; age-related: 88%) in each scenario. However, public funding had significantly greater support in the medical scenario (85%) than in the age-related one (64%). The median WTP (45 K SEK ≈ 4.15 K EUR) approximated the current Swedish market price for a single elective cycle and was not significantly different between the scenarios (Cliff’s delta − 0.009; 95%CI − 0.146, 0.128). These findings suggest that it may be inappropriate to justify counselling and priority policies only on the assumption that fertility preservation with OC for medical indications is more beneficial to women than when the same technique is used for age-related reasons. However, it would be interesting to investigate further why public funding appears more debatable than the treatment itself.