Investigating attitudes towards oocyte donation amongst potential donors and the general population: a systematic review

Abstract

With a current shortage of oocyte donors in the United Kingdom (UK), the psychological factors determining intentions to donate oocytes are important to understand. The objectives of this review were to explore psychosocial aspects of potential oocyte donors, including attitudes, motivations, as well as any issues surrounding potential donor disclosure and anonymity. A systematic search of English peer-reviewed journals of three computerized databases following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Only English language peer-reviewed studies that have examined the psychosocial aspects of oocyte donation (OD) amongst potential oocyte donors were included. No time restriction was set for date of publication. A total of 39 studies were included which were analysed using thematic analysis. Broadly, authors have reported positive attitudes towards OD, however, knowledge surrounding OD within the general population is poor. Three key themes were identified as influencing the decision to donate: (i) altruism; (ii) financial motivation; and (iii) experience of fertility problems through friends. There were distinct differences in motivations to donate amongst potential donors according to demographics including fertility status, parity, ethnicity and religious background. Attitudes towards disclosure and anonymity appear complex. This is the first systematic review to examine potential oocyte donors exclusively and provides progressive information on the psychosocial complexities which may influence the crucial decision to donate. An increased number of well-designed studies exploring the psychological factors affecting the donation decision could allow more directed assessment and counselling for potential oocyte donors, which may lead to an increase in donor recruitment.

Keywords:

• Pyschological factors
• motivation
• oocyte donation

Acknowledgements

S.P. and T.B.M. were responsible for the original manuscript design, drafting and revision for important intellectual content. S.P. and R.P. were responsible for the initial study screening. S.S., B.J. and M.Y.T were responsible for providing important intellectual input into the work and preparation, drafting and final approval of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.