ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2018
The Role of professional facilitators in cross-border assisted reproduction.
Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating Structural Tensions: Australian Surrogacy Facilitators' Understanding on Children's Rights in Cross-Border Surrogacy.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Independent surrogacy journeys without agency intervention: an ethnographic study of surrogates' experiences.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- Unraveling Informality and Precarity: New Labor Law Strategies for the Global Reproduction Network of Cross-Border Surrogacy.Asian bioethics review · 2024Article
- Article
- Commercial Surrogacy: An Overview.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022Review
- Reflections on autonomy in travel for cross border reproductive care.Monash bioethics review · 2021Article
- Going for brokerage: strategies and strains in commercial healthcare facilitation.Globalization and health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The operations of those who facilitate travel across international borders for access to assisted reproduction are little understood. Within the broader field of research into medical travel facilitators, most empirical studies have addressed websites and promotional materials, with few qualitative investigations of individuals who are service providers. The research presented here centres on interviews with 23 professionals facilitating cross-border assisted reproduction. This study sought to understand how facilitators and service providers operate within a professional framework, examining their understanding of the ethical limits on their roles within a largely unregulated and rapidly evolving international 'marketplace'. Broadly, participants trusted in the market to 'find its own level', such that unscrupulous players would not succeed because others would not refer to, or work with, them. In instances where a clear risk to the health of reproductive contributors or to the well-being of future children was perceived, participants understood their own ethical duty to be limited to service denial or withdrawal of participation. Among the eight facilitators who were not legal or medical professionals, there was a striking commonality, in that all had personal experience of assisted reproduction, both as patients and as reproductive contributors. Within this group, and particularly among the six women who directly 'matchmade' arrangements between intended parents, egg donors and surrogates, was a strong sense of 'embodied' expertise and claims to ethical practice based upon that expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.