S Purewal1, O B A van den Akker. 1. Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, The Burroughs, Hendon, London NW4 4BT, UK. S.Purewal@mdx.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The social and psychological factors determining intentions to donate gametes are important for clinics, policy-makers and recruitment campaigns. The aims of this systematic review were therefore to integrate the research findings regarding the psychosocial determinants of oocyte donation and extrapolate women's experiences of donation. METHODS: A bibliographic search of English language publications of four computerized databases was undertaken with no time restriction set for publications. RESULTS: A total of 64 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The research syntheses revealed there were distinct differences between patient and non-patient (known, commercial, volunteer and potential) donors on demographic characteristics, motives for donation, and issues relating to disclosure and attitudes towards the resultant offspring. Further, studies have found that a significant proportion of oocyte donors and women from the general population were prepared to donate their oocytes as identifiable donors. Studies which have examined the experiences of donors report positive experiences of oocyte donation. However, a number of methodological limitations relating to the oocyte donation research literature have been identified in this systematic review. CONCLUSION: Differences between donor groups on a range of factors highlight the need for tailored psychosocial evaluation and counselling. The review has demonstrated that it is not useful to generalize across donor groups on various factors relating to oocyte donation.
BACKGROUND: The social and psychological factors determining intentions to donate gametes are important for clinics, policy-makers and recruitment campaigns. The aims of this systematic review were therefore to integrate the research findings regarding the psychosocial determinants of oocyte donation and extrapolate women's experiences of donation. METHODS: A bibliographic search of English language publications of four computerized databases was undertaken with no time restriction set for publications. RESULTS: A total of 64 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The research syntheses revealed there were distinct differences between patient and non-patient (known, commercial, volunteer and potential) donors on demographic characteristics, motives for donation, and issues relating to disclosure and attitudes towards the resultant offspring. Further, studies have found that a significant proportion of oocyte donors and women from the general population were prepared to donate their oocytes as identifiable donors. Studies which have examined the experiences of donors report positive experiences of oocyte donation. However, a number of methodological limitations relating to the oocyte donation research literature have been identified in this systematic review. CONCLUSION: Differences between donor groups on a range of factors highlight the need for tailored psychosocial evaluation and counselling. The review has demonstrated that it is not useful to generalize across donor groups on various factors relating to oocyte donation.
Authors: George Queiroz Vaz; Alessandra Viviane Evangelista; Cassio Alessandro Paganoti Sartorio; Maria Cecilia Almeida Cardoso; Maria Cecilia Erthal; Paulo Gallo; Marco Aurelio Pinho Oliveira Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 3.411