P-541 The psychosocial and behavioural consequences of anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) testing on women

Abstract Study question What are the psychosocial and behavioural consequences of anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) testing in women without a history of infertility? Summary answer AMH testing influenced emotional well-being and reproductive decision-making, with those who perceived their AMH as ‘low’ experiencing greater distress, regret, and behavioural changes. What is known already AMH is widely used as a marker of ovarian reserve; however, it does not predict natural fertility or future reproductive potential. Despite this, many women undergo testing outside of clinical infertility contexts, often without adequate counselling regarding its limitations or implications. Prior studies suggest that misunderstanding AMH results may contribute to unwarranted anxiety and affect reproductive decision-making. Study design, size, duration A cross-sectional, anonymous online survey of 251 women with no history of infertility who had undergone AMH testing within the past five years. Participants/materials, setting, methods Participants aged 18–55 years with no prior history of infertility were recruited via social media advertising and women’s health organizations. The survey assessed their psychosocial responses to their AMH test result, reproductive decision-making, understanding of AMH, and interactions with healthcare providers. Main results and the role of chance Among 251 participants (mean age: 36 years, SD: 4.7), mean age at first AMH test was 33 years (SD: 4.3). The most common reasons for testing were considering pregnancy soon (29%) and curiosity about fertility (19%). The vast majority (94%) correctly identified AMH as a measure of ovarian reserve, but 20% incorrectly believed it assessed fertility. Almost half (47%) perceived their AMH result as ‘low’, and this was associated with greater emotional distress (p < 0.001) and increased decisional regret about testing (p = 0.038). Those with a perceived ‘low’ AMH result were also more likely to bring forward conception plans (p < 0.001), pursue elective egg freezing (p < 0.001), or consider fertility treatment (p < 0.001). Limitations, reasons for caution Findings rely on self-reported perceptions and are subject to recall bias. The sample may not be representative of all women undergoing AMH testing, as participation was voluntary, and recruitment was conducted online. Wider implications of the findings Despite evidence refuting AMH’s ability to predict natural fertility, many women undergo testing without appropriate guidance, leading to distress and potentially medically unnecessary interventions. These findings highlight ethical concerns surrounding AMH testing in women without infertility and underscore the need for better-informed counselling and evidence-based guidance before testing. Trial registration number No