Literature DB >> 27067509

Parental disclosure of assisted reproductive technology (ART) conception to their children: a systematic and meta-analytic review.

Maria Anna Tallandini1, Liviana Zanchettin2, Giorgio Gronchi3, Valentina Morsan2.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Does a genetic link and/or a child's age influence a parent's willingness to talk to a child about how they were conceived? SUMMARY ANSWER: The presence/absence of a biological link and the child's age clearly influences the disclosure process. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The research published to date has yielded diverse findings on autologous and donor assisted reproductive technology (ART) parents' disclosure of the conception method to their children and on the ages at which the children are informed, if told. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. A search of MEDLINE and PUBMED was run for English-language studies published from January 1996 through January 2015. A total of 26 studies were included in the systematic review, 19 of which were included in the meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: A total of 2814 parent responses were included in the systematic review. Two authors independently assessed the studies for review inclusion. Selection criteria were: peer-reviewed studies, quantitative studies only, research conducted after the birth of ART-conceived children, number of parent responses on disclosure status reported in terms of Told, Plan to tell, Uncertain, Plan to not tell. Thirty-two (32) study-level effect size statistics were included in the meta-analysis. Three authors independently assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Among parents who responded, 23% of the total number of parent responses indicated that they had already Told; 44% were Planning to tell; 13% were Uncertain and 20% were Planning to not tell their children about their ART conception. Meta-analysis gave no statistically significant differences between autologous and donor ART in the <10 years age group, when comparing Told versus Planning to tell/Uncertain/Planning to not tell. In both cases, the probability of disclosure was <50% (P < 0.05). Conversely, in the older age group (≥10 years old), a statistically significant difference was observed for autologous ART (Cohen's h = 0.86): Planning to tell showed a higher probability in the 10 years age group for the autologous ART subsample, than in the donor ART subsample (Cohen's h = 0.89). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: All parents participated voluntarily in the studies and may have influenced the data in the direction of disclosure thereby. The reviewed studies, moreover, differed in terms of methodology, type of sample and data categorization method. The number of studies analyzing disclosure for children ≥10 years was quite limited; and lastly, most of the data examined were not collected longitudinally. IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The high number of non-disclosing parents treated by donor ART points to an underestimation of the medical risks for the offspring (the presence of genetic illnesses, inadvertent consanguinity) and suggests that these children's rights may not be given due consideration. The decision to disclose may become more difficult over time, and ART parents need greater psychological support throughout the process. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was funded by the University of Trieste.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  assisted reproductive technology; children; children's age; disclosure; donor ART; homologous ART; meta-analysis; parents; review

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27067509     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  9 in total

1.  Exploring Infertile Couples' Decisions to Disclose Donor Conception to The Future Child.

Authors:  Fatemeh Hadizadeh-Talasaz; Masoumeh Simbar; Robab Latifnejad Roudsari
Journal:  Int J Fertil Steril       Date:  2020-10-12

2.  The role of age of disclosure of biological origins in the psychological wellbeing of adolescents conceived by reproductive donation: a longitudinal study from age 1 to age 14.

Authors:  Elena Ilioi; Lucy Blake; Vasanti Jadva; Gabriela Roman; Susan Golombok
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 8.982

3.  Attitudes towards embryo donation among healthcare professionals working in child healthcare: a survey study.

Authors:  Gabriela Armuand; Gunilla Sydsjö; Agneta Skoog Svanberg; Claudia Lampic
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 2.125

4.  'Genes versus children': if the goal is parenthood, are we using the optimal approach?

Authors:  Jackson C Kirkman-Brown; Mariana V Martins
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  Understanding parents' intention to disclose the donor conception to their child by application of the theory of planned behaviour.

Authors:  Claudia Lampic; Agneta Skoog Svanberg; Kimmo Sorjonen; Gunilla Sydsjö
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation.

Authors:  Jackson Kirkman-Brown; Carlos Calhaz-Jorge; Eline A F Dancet; Kersti Lundin; Mariana Martins; Kelly Tilleman; Petra Thorn; Nathalie Vermeulen; Lucy Frith
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2022-02-16

7.  Assisted Conception Socialization Self-Efficacy Among Israeli Lesbian, Gay, and Heterosexual Parent Families and its Association with Child Externalizing Problems.

Authors:  Geva Shenkman; Nicola Carone; Bénédicte Mouton; Salvatore d'Amore; Henny M W Bos
Journal:  J Child Fam Stud       Date:  2022-03-14

8.  Disclosure of sperm donation: a comparison between solo mother and two-parent families with identifiable donors.

Authors:  Tabitha Freeman; Sophie Zadeh; Venessa Smith; Susan Golombok
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2016-08-20       Impact factor: 3.828

9.  The Use of Network Theory for Analyzing Switching Behaviors: Assessing Cognitive and Educational-Based Intervention for Promoting Health.

Authors:  Giorgio Gronchi
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-06-26
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.