MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2587223595 · doi:10.1093/humrep/31.supplement_1.1

When the womb is overseas: the meaning-making of the gestational surrogacy in gay couples

2016· article· en· W2587223595 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicola Carone, Roberto Baiocco, Mara Morelli, Vittorio Lingiardi

Notice bibliographique

RevueIRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Health and Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMeaning (existential)ObstetricsGynecologyPsychologyPsychoanalysisMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapist

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Study question: How do gay couples deal with gestational surrogacy overseas? Summary answer: Feelings of impotence due to the distance, the importance of a close relationship with the gestational carrier, and gratitude for pregnancy emerged. What is known already: In the last two decades an increasing number of gay men has entered into surrogacy arrangements to become parents. Previous studies have addressed various aspects of this process, including changes associated with the transition to parenthood, the effect of upcoming fatherhood on how coping with the seemingly contradictory identities as gay and as parents, the motivations for seeking extraterritorial surrogacy, and the ethical issues regarding the potential exploitation of the women involved. However, there remains a dearth of studies that deals with the psychological implications of the physical distance between the gay fathers and the gestational carrier during the pregnancy. Study design, size, duration: Cross-sectional study. Data were collected between February and August 2015 on 20 gay-partnered fathers who pursued gestational surrogacy overseas in America or Canada because in Italy surrogacy is prohibited by law. Gay fathers were eligible for the study if they were Italian, had at least one child born in their current relationship, and did not receive a friend or relative’s oocyte donation. Participants/materials, setting, methods: Gay fathers were recruited via the Italian Rainbow Families. Joint, semi-structured interviews took place at fathers’ home and lasted 60–90 min. After the transcription, a draft was sent to each participant for amendment and approval, often with additional questions. An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was performed by two independent coders to identify recurrent themes. Critical feedback was discussed during all phases of analysis in team meeting. Main results and the role of chance: This study showed three recurrent themes in how Italian gay fathers deal with their gestational surrogacy arrangement overseas. All themes are related to consequences of the distance between fathers and the physical pregnancy. The loss of a sense of control with the subsequent feelings of frustration and anxiety is the main implication of the inability to experience the physical presence of the fetus. As consequence, fathers highlighted the importance of establishing a close relationship with the gestational carrier also to be always posted about ultrasounds and test results. Most couples reported that their emotional involvement is mirrored by the gestational carrier, who want to be called “special auntie” for including in the relationship also their husbands and children. Finally, fathers represented their gestational carrier with images of hospitality and force of nature, expressing a deep sense of gratitude for making them parents. Limitations, reasons for caution: Conjoint interviews process could have affected fathers’ personal points of view, hindering their ability to express themselves if they perceived their opinions as inconsistent with those of their partner. Moreover, retrospectively constructed stories do not allow for an extrapolation of the conclusions made. Wider implications of the findings: Our findings help in developing strategies to counsel Italian gay parents who experience distance with the gestational carrier and the fetus. The value of defining international guidelines for cross-border reproductive services is also supported at the aim of handling the uncertainty, unease and potential complications arising from the surrogacy process.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,122
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,949

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,003
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,082
Tête enseignante GPT0,350
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome)Même sujetReproductive Health and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207