Oocyte Donors' Experience and Expectations in a Non-profit Fertility Care Setting

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2024 Jul 23

PMID 39042340

Authors

Letizia Li Piani

Agathe Tshilembi

Michel De Vos

Evelyne Buyse

Sarah Ruttens

Edgardo Somigliana

Herman Tournaye

Christophe Blockeel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: In this survey, we aimed to provide the description of previous oocyte donors' profile in a Belgian tertiary fertility hospital clinic. The research question is as follows: could certain aspects be changed or improved, according to previous oocyte donors? The final purpose is to boost adherence to future oocyte donation (OD) programs, given the large gap between supply and demand.

Methods: We set up an observational cross-sectional study of oocyte donors who were recruited in a tertiary referral hospital. Participants were asked to join an anonymous online survey with questions about demographic and reproductive variables, reasons to start or discontinue OD, satisfaction rate, experience, and attitude towards presumed anonymity.

Results: A total of 218 women were eligible to join the study, with a response rate of 49% (108/218). The emerging profile of the oocyte donor is a well-educated (102/108 with at least a high school degree), employed (86/108) woman in her thirties. Altruism and solidarity were the main drivers of their choice (105/108), and a general permissive attitude towards disclosure of their personal information to the recipient (60/108) was registered. In case of negative experience or discontinuation, concerns regarding pain management and specific long-lasting psychological support were expressed (8/20).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest the need to improve pain relief and to offer psychological support even beyond ending the donation process. These interventions could improve both participation and adherence to OD programs, ensuring an autonomous and free choice while avoiding any risk of exploitation.

Citing Articles

Personal interest and attitudes towards oocyte donation practice: a cross-sectional survey among Dutch-speaking young women in Belgium.

Li Piani L, Schoonjans B, De Vos M, Tournaye H, Blockeel C J Assist Reprod Genet. 2025; 42(2):441-449.

PMID: 39798009 PMC: 11871165. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03381-6.

References

Lessor R . All in the family: social processes in ovarian egg donation between sisters. Sociol Health Illn. 1993; 15(3):393-413. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep10490713. View

Mills M, Rindfuss R, McDonald P, Te Velde E . Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17(6):848-60. PMC: 3529638. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmr026. View

Lutjen P, Trounson A, Leeton J, Findlay J, Wood C, Renou P . The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in vitro fertilization and embryo donation in a patient with primary ovarian failure. Nature. 1984; 307(5947):174-5. DOI: 10.1038/307174a0. View

Combs A, Kimes M, Jaslow C, Hayes H, OLeary L, Levy M . Perception of pain and the oocyte donor experience: a retrospective analysis of commercial US donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022; 45(5):906-912. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.06.013. View

Salama M, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Mallmann P, Westphal L . Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018; 35(7):1277-1288. PMC: 6063838. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-1181-x. View

Mahieu F, Decleer W, Osmanagaoglu K, Provoost V . Anonymous sperm donors' attitude towards donation and the release of identifying information. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019; 36(10):2007-2016. PMC: 6823408. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01569-9. View

Provoost V, Van Rompuy F, Pennings G . Non-donors' attitudes towards sperm donation and their willingness to donate. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017; 35(1):107-118. PMC: 5758459. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-017-1036-x. View

Skillern A, Cedars M, Huddleston H . Egg Donor Informed Consent Tool (EDICT): development and validation of a new informed consent tool for oocyte donors. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(6):1733-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.096. View

Klitzman R, Sauer M . Kamakahi vs ASRM and the future of compensation for human eggs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(2):186-187.e1. PMC: 4672630. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.046. View

10.

Adib Moghaddam E, Kazemi A, Kheirabadi G . Effect of a follow-up counseling program on mental health of oocyte donors: A randomized field trial. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023; 162(1):346-351. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14727. View

11.

Budak E, Garrido N, Soares S, Melo M, Meseguer M, Pellicer A . Improvements achieved in an oocyte donation program over a 10-year period: sequential increase in implantation and pregnancy rates and decrease in high-order multiple pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2007; 88(2):342-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.118. View

12.

Chambers G, Dyer S, Zegers-Hochschild F, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Banker M . International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: assisted reproductive technology, 2014†. Hum Reprod. 2021; 36(11):2921-2934. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab198. View

13.

Lysons J, Imrie S, Jadva V, Golombok S . Families created via identity-release egg donation: disclosure and an exploration of donor threat in early childhood. Reprod Biomed Online. 2023; 47(4):103235. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.05.007. View

14.

Lafuente-Funes S, Weis C, Hudson N, Provoost V . Egg donation in the age of vitrification: A study of egg providers' perceptions and experiences in the UK, Belgium and Spain. Sociol Health Illn. 2022; 45(2):259-278. PMC: 10100196. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.13590. View

15.

Pennings G . The forgotten group of donor-conceived persons. Hum Reprod Open. 2022; 2022(3):hoac028. PMC: 9282352. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoac028. View

16.

Harper J, Kennett D, Reisel D . The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(6):1135-40. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew065. View

17.

Whyte S, Chan H, Ferguson N, Godwin M, Hammarberg K, Torgler B . Understanding the Reasons Why Men and Women Do Not Donate Gametes. Reprod Sci. 2022; 30(5):1651-1659. PMC: 10160187. DOI: 10.1007/s43032-022-01112-9. View

18.

Platts S, Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Jones B, Parikh R, Thum M . Investigating attitudes towards oocyte donation amongst potential donors and the general population: a systematic review. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2019; 24(3):169-181. DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2019.1602736. View

19.

Wyns C, De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka M, Motrenko T, Smeenk J . ART in Europe, 2017: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2021; 2021(3):hoab026. PMC: 8342033. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoab026. View

20.

Ezeome I . Gamete donation-A review of ethical and legal issues. Afr J Reprod Health. 2023; 26(3):124-135. DOI: 10.29063/ajrh2022/v26i3.14. View