ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
The attitude of (would-be) recipients of donor sperm and interested persons regarding a worldwide family limit per donor.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study assessed the attitudes of (would-be) recipients of donor sperm and interested persons toward worldwide donor family quota, ideal and acceptable family numbers, reasons for supporting or opposing limits, and willingness to pay for restricted donors.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted between August and September 2025. Univariate and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify demographic predictors of attitudes toward a worldwide family limit.
resultsOverall, 70.3% of respondents supported a worldwide donor family quota, 21.6% opposed it, and 7.7% were uncertain. Support was significantly associated with older age, higher education, higher income, European residence, and being a mother of a donor-conceived child. In multinomial analyses, respondents in heterosexual relationships and those living outside Europe were significantly more likely to oppose a worldwide limit. The most frequently cited reason for supporting a limit was concern about accidental romantic relationships between donor half-siblings, followed by concerns about genetic disease transmission and psychosocial harm associated with large donor-sibling groups. Those opposing a worldwide limit most commonly cited reduced access to donor sperm, longer waiting times, and the absence of compelling reasons for a global cap. Five families was the most commonly preferred limit, whereas 15-25 families were more often considered acceptable. Willingness to pay increased as family limits decreased.
conclusionMost respondents supported a worldwide donor family limit, although the principal reasons cited-consanguinity and genetic disease risks-are not supported by current scientific evidence. Policymakers should balance concerns about large same-donor offspring groups against the potential consequences of stricter limits, including reduced access to donor sperm, higher costs, longer waiting times, and diminished reproductive choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42744998What 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.