Reproductive Donors’ Needs and Preferences: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review

Authors

1 Department of Midwifery, May.C., Islamic Azad University, Maybod, Iran;

2 Student Research Committee, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran;

3 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran;

4 Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran;

5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Background: Reproductive donation is a challenging task, in which donors’ needs are sometimes neglected. To provide reproductive donors with well-structured, evidence-based, and donor-centered care, it is essential to acknowledge their unique needs and preferences. This study aimed to synthesize the current evidence regarding donors’ needs and preferences.
Methods: This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) was conducted based on the recommended approach for MMSR by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) manual for data synthesis. The databases of Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched by two researchers separately, using keywords such as “egg donor”, “sperm donor”, “ovum donor”, “gamete donor”, “embryo donor”, desire, expectation, preference, and need without a time limit, up to December 2024. Original research articles regarding reproductive donors’ needs, written in English, were included in the study. Reviews, commentaries, letters to the editor, book chapters, and theses were excluded. Quality assessment was carried out by two researchers using JBI tools for cross-sectional, cohort, and qualitative studies. Data were synthesized by the convergent integrated approach by three researchers.
Results: Through data synthesis of 34 eligible articles, six categories of reproductive donors’ needs and preferences emerged. These categories included 1) Need for support, 2) Informational needs, 3) Need for counseling, 4) Requirement for financial policies, 5) Preference towards recognition of donors’ rights, and 6) Need for preserving donors’ dignity and respect.
Conclusion: Various reproductive donors’ needs and preferences are not completely met by the current care provided by fertility clinics. Healthcare policymakers and fertility clinics must consider the donors’ needs and preferences in policymaking and/or clinical practice to provide the services that donors deserve.
Registration: The protocol of this systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024588821).

Keywords

References

1.    Donation EWG, Kirkman-Brown J, Calhaz-Jorge C, et al. Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation. Human Reproduction Open. 2022;2022;hoac001.
2.    Smeenk J, Wyns C, Geyter CD, et al. ART in Europe, 2019: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Human Reproduction. 2023;38:2321-38. 
3.    Borgstrøm MB, Nygaard SS, Danielsen AK, et al. Exploring motivations, attitudes, and experiences of oocyte donors: A qualitative study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2019;98:1055-62.
4.    Adib Moghaddam E, Kazemi A, Kheirabadi G, et al. Self-image and social-image of the donors: Two different views from oocyte donors’ eyes. Journal of Health Psychology. 2022;27:548-56.
5.    Adib Moghaddam E, Kazemi A, Kheirabadi G, et al. Psychosocial consequences of oocyte donation in donors: A systematic review. European Journal of obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology. 2021;267:28-35.
6.    Oppenheimer D, Oppenheimer A, Vilhena S, et al. Shared Oocyte Donation: Ideas and Expectations in a Bioethical Context Based on a Qualitative Survey of Brazilian Women. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2018;40:527-33.
7.    Samorinha C, Freitas C de, Silva S. Donor-centred care: the facilitating and constraining factors experienced by gamete donors in a public bank. Human Fertility. 2023;26:115-26.
8.    Skoog Svanberg A, Lampic C, Gejerwall A, et al. Gamete donors’ satisfaction; gender differences and similarities among oocyte and sperm donors in a national sample. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2013;92:1049-56. 
9.    Kreindler SA. The politics of patient‐centred care. Health Expectations. 2015;18:1139-50.
10.    Rodriguez Santana I, Mason A, Gutacker N, et al. Need, demand, supply in health care: working definitions, and their implications for defining access. Health Economics, Policy, and law. 2023;18:1-13.
11.    Russo S, Jongerius C, Faccio F, et al. Understanding Patients’ Preferences: A Systematic Review of Psychological Instruments Used in Patients’ Preference and Decision Studies. Value in Health. 2019;22:491-501.
12.    Purewal S, van den Akker OBA. Systematic review of oocyte donation: Investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Human Reproduction Update. 2009;15:499-515.
13.    Van den Broeck U, Vandermeeren M, Vanderschueren D, et al. A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Human Reproduction Update. 2013;19:37-51. 
14.    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. Human Reproduction Update. 2016;22:450-65.
15.    Iranifard E, Ebrahimzadeh Zagami S, Amirian M, et al. A systematic review of assisted and third-party reproduction guidelines regarding management and care of donors. Reproduction Health. 2024;21:75. 
16.    Loyal S, Hudson N, Culley L, et al. The experience of counselling for UK egg providers. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research. 2023;23:702-8. 
17.    Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J, et al. Mixed methods systematic reviews. In: Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, et al. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2024. 
18.    Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2020.
19.    The Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical Appraisal Tools. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2023. [Cited 23 May 2025]. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
20.    Jiang H, Yuan H, Tee S, et al. Perspectives and experiences of community-dwelling older adults who experience falling: A qualitative meta-synthesis. International Journal of Nursing Sciences. 2024;11:276-85.
21.    Leow MQH, Chiang J, Chua TJX, et al. The relationship between smartphone addiction and sleep among medical students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2023;18:e0290724.
22.    Ghiglieri C, Dempster M, Wright S, et al. Psychosocial functioning in individuals with advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: a mixed methods systematic review. BMC Palliative Care. 2023;22:164. 
23.    Byrd LM, Sidebotham M, Lieberman B. Egg donation — The donor’s view: An aid to future recruitment. Human Fertility. 2002;5:175-82.
24.    Isaksson S, Sydsjö G, Skoog Svanberg A, et al. Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation. Fertility and Sterility. 2014;102:1160-6. 
25.    Klock SC, Braverman AM, Rausch DT. Predicting Anonymous Egg Donor Satisfaction: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Women’s Health. 1998;7:229-37.
26.    Lampic C, Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjo G. Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors. Human Reproduction. 2014;29:1978-86.
27.    Lindheim SR, Porat N, Jaeger AS. Survey report of gamete donors’ and recipients’ preferences regarding disclosure of third party reproduction outcomes and genetic risk information. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2011;37:292-9. 
28.    Ping P, Zhu WB, Zhang XZ, et al. Sperm donation and its application in China: a 7-year multicenter retrospective study. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2011;13:644-8.
29.    Thorn P, Katzorke T, Daniels K. Semen donors in Germany: A study exploring motivations and attitudes. Human Reproduction. 2008;23:2415-20.
30.    van den Akker OBA, Crawshaw MA, Blyth ED, et al. Expectations and experiences of gamete donors and donor-conceived adults searching for genetic relatives using DNA linking through a voluntary register. Human Reproduction. 2015;30:111-21. 
31.    Wodoslawsky S, Fatunbi J, Mercier R, et al. Sperm donor attitudes and experiences with direct-to-consumer genetic testing. F&S Reports. 2023;4:36-42.
32.    Jadva V, Lamba N, Kadam K, et al. Indian egg donors’ characteristics, motivations and feelings towards the recipient and resultant child. Reproduction Biomedicine and Society Online. 2015;1:98-103.
33.    Kirkman M, Bourne K, Fisher J, et al. Gamete donors’ expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring. Human Reproduction. 2014;29:731-8. 
34.    Lessor R. All in the family: social processes in ovarian egg donation between sisters. Sociology of Health and Illness. 1993;15:393-413.
35.    Mutlu B. Between Solidarity and Conflict: Tactical Biosociality of Turkish Egg Donors. Culture Medicine and Psychiatry. 2023;47:684-700.
36.    Nordqvist P, Gilman L. A Sense of Connectedness in Reproductive Donation. Contrasting Policy With Donor and Donor Kin Lived Experience. Journal of Family Issues. 2024;45:1973-96.
37.    Visser M, Mochtar MH, De Melker AA, et al. Psychosocial counselling of identifiable sperm donors. Human Reproduction. 2016;31:1066-74.
38.    Crawshaw MA, Blyth ED, Daniels KD. Past semen donors’ views about the use of a voluntary contact register. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2007;14:411-7.
39.    Crawshaw M, Dally J. Producing sperm, egg and embryo donors’ pen portraits and other personal information for later use by donor offspring: an exploratory study of professional practices. Human Fertility. 2012;15:82-8.
40.    Gilman L. Toxic money or paid altruism: the meaning of payments for identity-release gamete donors. Sociology of Health and Illness. 2018;40:702-717. 
41.    Goedeke S, Daniels K, Thorpe M, et al. Building extended families through embryo donation: the experiences of donors and recipients. Human Reproduction. 2015;30:2340-50.
42.    Goedeke S, Gamble H, Thurlow R. Extended families? Contact expectations and experiences of egg donors donating to previously unknown recipients. Human Fertility. 2023;26:1519-29. 
43.    Graham S, Jadva V, Freeman T, et al. Being an identity-release donor: a qualitative study exploring the motivations, experiences and future expectations of current UK egg donors. Human Fertility. 2016;19:230-41.
44.    Hammarberg K, Johnson L, Bourne K, et al. Proposed legislative change mandating retrospective release of identifying information: consultation with donors and Government response. Human Reproduction. 2014;29:286-92.
45.    Haylett J. One Woman Helping Another: Egg Donation as a Case of Relational Work. Politics & Society. 2012;40:223-47.
46.    Blyth E, Crawshaw M, Frith L, et al. Gamete donors’ reasons for, and expectations and experiences of, registration with a voluntary donor linking register. Human Fertility. 2017;20:268-78.
47.    Crawshaw M, Frith L, van den Akker O, et al. Voluntary DNA-based information exchange and contact services following donor conception: an analysis of service users’ needs. New Genetics and Society. 2016;35:372-92.48. 
48.    Graham S. The opposite of a step parent – The genetics without any of the emotion: ‘sperm donors’ reflections on identity-release donation and relatedness. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online. 2022;14:192-203. doi:10.1016/j.rbms.2021.06.003
49.    Gürtin ZB, Ahuja KK, Golombok S. Egg-share donors’ and recipients’ knowledge, motivations and concerns: clinical and policy implications. Clinical Ethics. 2012;7:183-92.
50.    Kenney NJ, McGowan ML. Looking back: egg donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertility and Sterility. 2010;93:455-66. 
51.    Lalos A, Daniels K, Gottlieb C, et al. Recruitment and motivation of semen providers in Sweden. Human Reproduction. 2003;18:212-6.
52.    Samorinha C, De Freitas C, Baía I, et al. Payment to gamete donors: equality, gender equity, or solidarity? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2020;37:133-40.
53.    Tober D, Garibaldi C, Blair A, et al. Alignment between expectations and experiences of egg donors: what does it mean to be informed? Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online. 2020;12:1-13.
54.    Indekeu A, Maas AJBM, McCormick E, et al. Factors associated with searching for people related through donor conception among donor-conceived people, parents, and donors: a systematic review. F&S Reviews. 2021;2:93-119.
55.    Svanberg AS, Sydsj€ G, Lampic C. Psychosocial aspects of identity-release gamete donation – perspectives of donors, recipients, and offspring. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020;125:175-82.
56.    De Proost M, Hudson N, Provoost V. ‘Nothing will stop me from giving the gift of life’: a qualitative analysis of egg donor forum posts. Culture Health and Sexuality. 2021;23:690-704.
57.    Gilman L. The ‘Selfish Element’: How Sperm and Egg Donors Construct Plausibly Moral Accounts of the Decision to Donate. Sociology. 2022;56:227-43.
58.    Keehn J, Howell E, Sauer MV, et al. How Agencies Market Egg Donation on the Internet: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. 2015;43:610-8.
59.    Schneider J, Lahl J, Kramer W. Long-term breast cancer risk following ovarian stimulation in young egg donors: a call for follow-up, research and informed consent. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2017;34:480-5.
60.    The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility. 2021;116:319-25. 
61.    Tober D, Pavone V, Lafuente‐Funes S, et al. Eggonomics: Vitrification and bioeconomies of egg donation in the United States and Spain. Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 2023;37:248-263.
62.    Perler L, Schurr C. Intimate Lives in the Global Bioeconomy: Reproductive Biographies of Mexican Egg Donors. Body and Society. 2020;27:3-27.
63.    Raes I, Ravelingien A, Pennings G. The right of the donor to information about children conceived from his or her gametes. Human Reproduction. 2013;28:560-5.
64.    Klitzman R. Buying and selling human eggs: infertility providers’ ethical and other concerns regarding egg donor agencies. BMC Medical Ethics. 2016;17:71. 
International Journal of Community Based Nursing & Midwifery
Volume 13, Issue 4 - Serial Number 52
October 2025
Pages 242-257

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics