Literature DB >> 8747077

Follow-up study of Finnish volunteer oocyte donors concerning their attitudes to oocyte donation.

V Söderström-Anttila1.   

Abstract

A questionnaire was sent to the first 30 Finnish volunteer oocyte donors at 12-18 months after donation to determine their experiences concerning treatment and attitudes to donation. All donations were carried out anonymously and without payment. The donors were recruited by advertising in newspapers. Most donors were very satisfied with the experience. The side-effects of the treatment had been slight and tolerable. In all, 85% of the respondents reported no gynaecological problems afterwards. The problems reported by the other 15% were minor and unrelated to the donation. A total of 67% of the respondents would have liked to have known if pregnancy had been achieved in the recipient, and 89% reported that they had thought about the possibility of a child from their donation. Some 42% of the respondents preferred to receive no information concerning either the child or the recipient couple. Of the respondents, 59% thought the offspring should be told about its origin and 33% thought the child should be given identifying information about the donor. About half of the others would agree to the release of non-identifying information. In all, 96% of the respondents reported that their own feelings were sufficiently taken into consideration during the treatment and 78% would donate again. No-one regretted their donation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8747077     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135852

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


  8 in total

1.  Understanding differences in the perception of anonymous parties: a comparison between gamete donors and their recipients.

Authors:  S R Lindheim; S Kavic; M V Sauer
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  The reduction of sperm donor candidates due to the abolition of the anonymity rule: analysis of an argument.

Authors:  P Guido
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Disposition preferences in oocyte preservation patients.

Authors:  Anne P Hutchinson; Shweta Hosakoppal; Kathryn A Trotter; Rafael Confino; John Zhang; Susan C Klock; Angela K Lawson; Mary Ellen Pavone
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 3.357

4.  Attitudes toward oocyte donation among medical and nursing students and couples who have recently become parents: A Swedish study.

Authors:  Gunilla Sydsjö; Sofia Nevander; Sara Norman; Agneta Skoog Svanberg
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2008-12-07

5.  Advocating for longitudinal follow-up of the health and welfare of egg donors.

Authors:  Molly Woodriff; Mark V Sauer; Robert Klitzman
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Gamete donors' satisfaction; gender differences and similarities among oocyte and sperm donors in a national sample.

Authors:  Agneta Skoog Svanberg; Claudia Lampic; Ann-Louise Gejerwall; Johannes Gudmundsson; Per-Olof Karlström; Nils-Gunnar Solensten; Gunilla Sydsjö
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2013-06-24       Impact factor: 3.636

7.  Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors.

Authors:  C Lampic; A Skoog Svanberg; G Sydsjö
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 6.918

8.  Oocyte donors’ awareness on donation procedure and risks: A call for developing guidelines for health tourism in oocyte donation programmes

Authors:  Pınar Tulay; Okan Atılan
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2018-10-09
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.