ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2025
Stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of reproductive genetic carrier screening in gamete donation: a scoping review.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Routes to expanded carrier screening in the UK: The perspectives of professional stakeholders.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat is known about stakeholders' experiences and perspectives with reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) in gamete donation? SUMMARY ANSWER: RGCS has impacted donors' autonomy, recipients' decision-making, healthcare professionals' confidence, and third-party service providers' management of the donor pool. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Growing acceptance of diverse family structures and advances in RGCS technology have driven demand for RGCS in gamete donation, yet its clinical, social, and ethical implications remain poorly understood. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A scoping review of four databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus) with citation searching was conducted to identify original research, position statements, and conference abstracts published in English with an unrestricted date range. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsOf the 470 studies identified, 427 were excluded during title and abstract screening and 14 during full-text review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. For the 29 studies included, data were extracted in excel, and NVivo was used to code data and derive themes. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Four themes regarding stakeholders' experiences and perspectives with RGCS in gamete donation were derived: (i) RGCS presented new challenges regarding donor autonomy, informed consent, and result disclosure; (ii) recipients valued RGCS but decision-making was also shaped by cost, time constraints, and genetic literacy; (iii) healthcare professionals supported donors and recipients with RGCS, yet felt unskilled and inexperienced; and (iv) third-party service providers managed donor availability challenges from increased carrier detection through RGCS. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This review was restricted to articles published in English. A range of terms were used to describe RGCS; thus, it is possible that not all relevant articles were identified in the search. Most included studies were conducted in the USA within a private medical system that permits compensation for gamete donors, which may shape the results and relevance to other countries with differing healthcare systems. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsOur findings suggest that the growing demand for RGCS technology may impact donors' willingness to donate and the availability of donor gametes. Third-party service providers may refine their exclusion criteria to include donors with a positive carrier status in the donor pool or increase the involvement of recipients in donor selection. Healthcare professionals working in gamete donation require more guidance and training on RGCS. Further research is required to establish a more robust evidence base regarding how RGCS impacts stakeholders and to establish clearer guidelines regarding RGCS in gamete donation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. REGISTRATION NUMBER: n/a.
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.