Non-identified and directed embryo donation: a questionnaire study on donor and recipient perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing challenge of abandoned surplus embryos in the ART arena, and the limited traction of embryo donation as a viable embryo disposition choice, it is important to better understand barriers to wider adoption of this opportunity. We aim to learn about perspectives and experience of participants in directed and non-identified embryo donation programmes. This was a longitudinal cohort survey study, of all participants in an embryo donation programme in a single university affiliated clinic between 2016 and 2020. Clinical data were extracted from counselling reports. Based on these data, non-identified online questionnaires were constructed and refined via Delphi procedure for face and content validity. Sixty-five online questionnaires were emailed between March-April 2021. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation, Fisher's exact test and t-test were used for analyses. Source of patient awareness, factors influencing the decision-making process, patient perspective and satisfaction were explored. The response rate was 67.2%. Most participants in the non-identified programme learned of it through their treating physicians, whereas most participants in the directed programme learned of it online. The main driver to donate across both cohorts was wanting to give others the opportunity to experience the joy of parenthood. Overall, 45% described moderate to marked difficulty in decision making related to donating their embryos, and this did not differ between cohorts. Non-identified donors reported feeling highly attached to the donated embryos more often than directed donors. Level of satisfaction was higher in the directed donation programme. Participants were more satisfied following directed than non-identified donation, and some even consider their counterparts as extended family. Our findings should be validated in various settings, and on larger samples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".