Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31147865›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2019

The attitude of female students towards sperm donation by their partner.

Guido Pennings, Veerle Provoost

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Understanding the Reasons Why Men and Women Do Not Donate Gametes.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Guido PenningsDepartment of Philosophy and Moral Science, Bioethics Institute Ghent (BIG), Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium. Guido.Pennings@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0754-8055
Veerle ProvoostDepartment of Philosophy and Moral Science, Bioethics Institute Ghent (BIG), Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study is to assess the attitude of heterosexual female students towards sperm donation by their partners and towards sperm donation in general.

methodsThe method is an online anonymous survey of 1525 female students.

resultsThe majority of the women had a positive attitude towards sperm donation in general, but only 37% would support their partner if he would want to donate. The highest barriers to accepting donation by their partner were the fact that he would have one or more children that she would not know (55.8%) and the chance that he would be traced by his donor offspring (58.9%). There was a significant difference between the general attitude towards sperm donation as a fertility treatment and the attitude towards sperm donation by the partner.

conclusionsMen rightly worry about their partner or future partner when they donated or consider donating sperm. Only about one in three women would support their partner if he would want to donate. The majority of women perceived sperm donation by their partner as an act that also concerns them and believed that they should be heard in this decision. To promote full informed consent, the relational component should be included in counselling donors, not only regarding the present but also regarding the (possible) future partner.

Indexed as

AttitudeSpermatozoaTissue and Organ ProcurementAdultDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleReligion and PsychologySexual PartnersStudentsSurveys and QuestionnairesTissue DonorsYoung AdultAttitudeDonor conceptionFemale studentsPartnerSperm donation

Identifiers

PMID31147865
PMCPMC6642240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.