Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34227667›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2021

Exploring the knowledge and attitudes of women of reproductive age from the general public towards egg donation and egg sharing: a UK-based study.

Timothy Bracewell-Milnes, James C Holland, Benjamin P Jones, Srdjan Saso, Paula Almeida, Kate Maclaran, Julian Norman-Taylor, Dimitrios Nikolaou, Nishel M Shah, Mark Johnson and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Understanding the Reasons Why Men and Women Do Not Donate Gametes.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Timothy Bracewell-MilnesAssisted Conception Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9827-4816
James C HollandDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Institute of Reproductive & Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.
Benjamin P JonesDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Institute of Reproductive & Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0391-0443
Srdjan SasoDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Institute of Reproductive & Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.
Paula AlmeidaAssisted Conception Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.
Kate MaclaranAssisted Conception Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.
Julian Norman-TaylorAssisted Conception Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.
Dimitrios NikolaouAssisted Conception Unit, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.
Nishel M ShahDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Institute of Reproductive & Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.
Mark JohnsonDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Institute of Reproductive & Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1096-9918
Meen-Yau ThumDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Institute of Reproductive & Developmental Biology, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK.
Hammersmith Hospital · GBChelsea and Westminster Hospital · GBLister Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat are the knowledge and views of UK-based women towards egg donation (ED) and egg sharing (ES)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Lacking knowledge of the practices of ED and ES could be an influential factor in donor egg shortages, rather than negative perceptions or lack of donor anonymity and financial incentives. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The increasing age of women trying to conceive has led to donor egg shortages, with ED and ES failing to meet demand. Indeed, in recent years in the UK, ES numbers have fallen. This results in long waiting lists, forcing patients abroad for fertility treatment to take up cross border reproductive care. Previous research suggests a lack of knowledge of ED among members of the general public; however, no study has yet assessed knowledge or views of ES in the general public. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Six hundred and thirty-five UK-based women over 18 years were voluntarily recruited from social media community groups by convenience sampling. The recruitment period was from February to April 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsParticipants completed a previously validated questionnaire regarding female fertility, ED and ES, including knowledge, perceptions and approval of the practices and relevant legislation. This included ranking key benefits and issues regarding egg sharing. The questionnaire was completed using the online Qualtrics survey software. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Regarding knowledge of ED and ES, 56.3% and 79.8%, respectively had little or no prior knowledge. Upon explanation, most approved of ED (85.8%) and ES (70.4%). A greater proportion of respondents would donate to a family member/friend (49.75%) than to an anonymous recipient (35.80%). Overall, ES was viewed less favourably than ED, with ethical and practical concerns highlighted. Women aged 18-30 years were significantly more likely to approve of egg donation practice compared to those aged >30 years (P < 0.0001). Those against ES found fears of financial coercion or negative psychological wellbeing the most concerning. About 35.8% and 49.7% would personally consider anonymous and known ED, respectively, whilst 56.7% would consider ES. Those answering in favour of egg sharing were significantly more likely to give higher benefit ratings compared to those against the practice (P < 0.001). Most agreed (55.8%) with and were not deterred to donate (60.1%) by the 'Disclosure of Donor Identity' legislation. Only 31.6% agreed with the compensatory cap; however, 52.7% would not be more motivated to donate by an increased cap. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There were several limitations of the study, including the use of convenience sampling and the voluntary nature of participation opening the study up to sampling and participation bias. Finally, closed questions were predominantly used to allow the generation of quantitative data and statistical analysis. However, this approach prevented opinion justification and qualitative analysis, limiting the depth of conclusions drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to survey the general public's knowledge and views of ED/ES using a previously validated questionnaire. The conclusion that lack of knowledge could be contributing to the current donor shortfall in the UK demonstrates that campaigns to inform women of the practices are necessary to alleviate donor oocyte shortages. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funds were used for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.

Indexed as

Insemination, Artificial, HeterologousMedical TourismAttitudeFemaleHumansMotivationOocyte DonationUnited Kingdomattitudesdisclosureegg donationegg sharingknowledge

Identifiers

PMID34227667
PMCPMC8648294
OpenAlexW3178954295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.