Advertisement

Experiences and psychological outcomes of the oocyte donor: a survey of donors post-donation from one center

  • Jennifer K. BlakemoreEmail author
  • Paxton Voigt
  • Mindy R. Schiffman
  • Shelley Lee
  • Andria G. Besser
  • M. Elizabeth Fino
Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the experiences and psychological outcomes of oocyte donors from one fertility center.

Methods

An anonymous survey was distributed via a secure email to 161 donors who underwent oocyte donation—anonymous, directed/known, and recruited agency—between January 2008 and January 2019 at the NYU Langone Fertility Center.

Results

Thirty-six donors completed the survey with the majority between 2 and 10 years since donation. Respondents reported a high prevalence of psychiatric symptoms or diagnoses post-donation. The majority of donors reported positive thoughts and feelings toward their donation process as well as to the knowledge of children born from their donation. Negative comments about donation were in the minority but focused on unexpected aspects about the process or outcome. Based on qualitative analysis, thoughts about family or “family-oriented thoughts” were the most frequent theme in respondent comments. 62.5% of respondents reporting that they would be open to identity-disclosure or open donation after experiencing the process.

Conclusions

Despite a high reported prevalence of psychiatric symptoms, the majority of respondents felt positively about the donation experience as well as the prospect of open donation or identity-disclosure post-donation. Further research on long-term psychological outcomes, related to all aspects of donation, is important as the counseling and informed consent of oocyte donors continues to evolve. These data will be particularly important with regard to the aspect of disclosure, both planned and unplanned, in the modern era of electronic information sharing.

Keywords

Oocyte donation Psychological outcomes Disclosure Donor 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the donors who participated in this study.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to study conception and design. Data collection and analysis were performed by Jennifer Blakemore and Paxton Voigt. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jennifer Blakemore and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution (NYU School of Medicine Institutional Review Board, #s18-00698).

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Available at https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PubliMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0. Accessed 14 June 2018
  3. 3.
    Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Interests, obligations and rights of donor in gamete donation: an Ethics Committee opinion. 2019. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(4):664–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahuja KK, Simons EG, Edwards RG. Money, morals and medical risks: conflicting notions underlying the recruitment of egg donors. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(2):279–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Woodriff M, Sauer MV, Klitzman R. Advocating for longitudinal follow-up of the health and welfare of egg donors. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):662–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Bora S, et al. Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(4):250–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zadeh S, Ilioi EC, Jadva V, Golombok S. The perspective of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(6):1099–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ilioi EC, Golombok S. Psychological adjustment in adolescents conceived by assisted reproduction techniques: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(1):84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pasch LA. New realities for the practice of egg donation: a family-building perspective. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(7):1194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miettinen A, Rotkirch A, Suikkari A-M, Soderstrom-Anttila V. Attitudes of anonymous and identity-release oocyte donors towards future contact with donor offspring. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(4):672–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams RA, Machin LL. Rethinking gamete donor care: a satisfaction survey of egg and sperm donors in the UK. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0199971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kenney NJ, McGowan ML. Looking back: egg donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):455–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenfield DA. The impact of disclosure on donor gamete participants: donors, intended parents and offspring. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20:265–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van den Akker OBA, Crawshaw MA, Blyth ED, Frith LJ. Expectations and experiences of gamete donors and donor-conceived adults searching for genetic relatives using DNA linking through a voluntary register. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(1):111–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harper JC, Kennett D, Reisel D. The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(6):1135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Williams KE, Stemmle PG, Westphal LM, Rasgon NL. Mood disorders in oocyte donor candidates: brief report and implications for future research. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(4):847–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer K. Blakemore
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paxton Voigt
    • 2
  • Mindy R. Schiffman
    • 1
  • Shelley Lee
    • 1
  • Andria G. Besser
    • 1
  • M. Elizabeth Fino
    • 1
  1. 1.NYU Langone Fertility Center, NYU Langone HealthNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.NYU Langone School of MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations