Literature DB >> 29323605

Outcomes for Gestational Carriers Versus Traditional Surrogates in the United States.

Erika L Fuchs1, Abbey B Berenson1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the obstetric and procedural outcomes of traditional surrogates and gestational carriers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants included 222 women living in the United States who completed a brief online survey between November 2015 and February 2016. Differences between gestational carriers (n = 204) and traditional surrogates (n = 18) in demographic characteristics, pregnancy outcomes, and procedural outcomes were examined using chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, and t-tests.
RESULTS: Out of 248 eligible respondents, 222 surveys were complete, for a response rate of 89.5%. Overall, obstetric outcomes were similar among gestational carriers and traditional surrogates. Traditional surrogates were more likely than gestational carriers to have a Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Revised score of 16 or higher (37.5% vs. 4.0%). Gestational carriers reported higher mean compensation ($27,162.80 vs. $17,070.07) and were more likely to travel over 400 miles (46.0% vs. 0.0%) than traditional surrogates.
CONCLUSIONS: Procedural differences, but not differences in obstetric outcomes, emerged between gestational carriers and traditional surrogates. To ensure that both traditional surrogates and gestational carriers receive optimal medical care, it may be necessary to extend practice guidelines to ensure that traditional surrogates are offered the same level of care offered to gestational carriers.

Entities:  

Keywords:  infertility; pregnancy; surrogacy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29323605      PMCID: PMC5962328          DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2017.6540

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  8 in total

1.  The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Revised Glossary on ART Terminology, 2009.

Authors:  F Zegers-Hochschild; G D Adamson; J de Mouzon; O Ishihara; R Mansour; K Nygren; E Sullivan; S van der Poel
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2009-10-04       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  Recommendations for practices utilizing gestational carriers: a committee opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Consideration of the gestational carrier: a committee opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-03-29       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Trends and outcomes of gestational surrogacy in the United States.

Authors:  Kiran M Perkins; Sheree L Boulet; Denise J Jamieson; Dmitry M Kissin
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  The long-term experiences of surrogates: relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements.

Authors:  Susan Imrie; Vasanti Jadva
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2014-07-05       Impact factor: 3.828

6.  Screening of gestational carriers in the United States.

Authors:  Erika L Fuchs; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers.

Authors:  Vasanti Jadva; Clare Murray; Emma Lycett; Fiona MacCallum; Susan Golombok
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 8.  Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families-a systematic review.

Authors:  Viveca Söderström-Anttila; Ulla-Britt Wennerholm; Anne Loft; Anja Pinborg; Kristiina Aittomäki; Liv Bente Romundstad; Christina Bergh
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2015-10-09       Impact factor: 15.610

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.