Oocyte donation disclosure decisions: a longitudinal follow-up at middle childhood

Parents' disclosure to their donor-conceived children in the last 10 years and factors affecting disclosure: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of donor conception has been advocated in several jurisdictions in recent years, especially in those that practice identity-release donation. However, research on disclosure decisions has not been consolidated systematically in the last 10 years to review if parents are telling and what factors may be impacting their decisions.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

Are parents disclosing to their donor-conceived children, and what factors have influenced their disclosure decisions across different contexts and family forms in the last 10 years?

SEARCH METHODS

A bibliographic search of English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2012 and 2022 from seven databases was undertaken. References cited in included articles were manually scrutinized to identify additional references and references that cited the included articles were also manually searched. Inclusion criteria were articles focused on parents (including heterosexual, single mothers by choice, same-sex couples, and transsexual) of donor-conceived persons in both jurisdictions with or without identity-release provisions. Studies focused solely on surrogacy, donors, donor-conceived persons, or medical/fertility staff were excluded as were studies where it was not possible to extract donor-recipient parents' data separately. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Systematic Reviews were used to assess article quality and bias.

OUTCOMES

Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria representing 34 studies and 4248 parents (including heterosexual, single, same-sex, and transsexual parents although the majority were heterosexual) from countries with anonymous donation and those with identity-release provisions or who had subsequently enacted these provisions (Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Middle East, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA) A general trend towards disclosure was noted across these groups of parents with most disclosing to their donor-conceived children before the age of 10 years. Further, the majority of those who had not yet told, reported planning to disclose, although delayed decisions were also associated with lower disclosure overall. Same-sex and single parents were more likely to disclose than heterosexual parents. There was recognition of disclosure as a process involving ongoing conversations and that decisions were impacted by multiple interacting intrapersonal, interpersonal, and external contextual and social factors. Methodological limitations, such as the different population groups and contexts from which participants were drawn (including that those parents who choose not to disclose may be less likely to participate in research), are acknowledged in integrating findings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This review has reinforced the need for a theoretical model to explain parents' disclosure decisions and research exploring the role of legislative provisions, culture, and donor/family type in decision-making. Greater ongoing access to psychological support around disclosure may be important to promote parent and family well-being.

Comparing the psychological outcomes of donor and non-donor conceived people: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over 70 000 donor-conceived (DC) people have been born in the UK since 1991. Little is known about their long-term psychological outcomes and no systematic review has assessed these.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of the psychological experiences of DC people through childhood and adulthood (Prospero: CRD42021257863).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), the Excerpta Medica database (Embase), MEDLINE® and PsycINFO, conducted on 4 January 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Quantitative and qualitative studies were included if: there were five or more participants; they were peer reviewed; and any DC psychological outcomes were assessed. No limits on date, language or country were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Double screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed, using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoring.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty studies (with 4666 DC participants), mostly from high-income anglophone countries, with heterogeneity of design, populations and outcome measures, were included. Of 19 comparative studies, 14 found no difference in outcomes between DC and non-DC people, ten found better outcomes (in health, well-being, self-esteem and emotional warmth) and six found worse outcomes (increased autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, addiction issues, mental illness, disruptive behaviour and identity problems). Qualitative data revealed common themes relating to identity formation, mistrust and concerns regarding genetic heritage. The evidence regarding adulthood outcomes was very limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The research on DC individuals presents a nuanced picture, with most studies suggesting comparable or improved outcomes in terms of well-being and relationships, but with a notable minority indicating higher rates of mental health and identity struggles. Qualitative findings underscore common negative experiences, whereas the early disclosure of DC status appears beneficial for psychological well-being.

Who's your daddy? An ethical argument for disclosure to donor conceived children

To our knowledge, there have been few discussions in the andrology literature regarding the ethics of disclosure to donor conceived children. Our goal in this paper is to summarize the main reasons in favor of disclosure to engender more conversations about the ethics of donor conception in andrology circles. Specifically, we argue (1) transparency regarding gamete donation upholds the ethical principle of beneficence by improving the psychological health of donor conceived children; and (2) based on the ethical principle of autonomy, donor conceived children should have the right to know their donor status.

Development of the Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool): A digital decision aid intervention about children's origins from donated gametes or embryos

Objective

This study aimed to create and develop a well-designed, theoretically driven, evidence-based, digital, decision Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool) prototype.

Methods

This developmental study used an inclusive, systematic, and iterative process to formulate a prototype TELL Tool: the first digital decision aid for parents who have children 1 to 16 years of age and used donated gametes or embryos to establish their families. Recommendations from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration and from experts in decision aid development, digital health interventions, design thinking, and instructional design guided the process.

Results

The extensive developmental process incorporated researchers, clinicians, parents, children, and other stakeholders, including donor-conceived adults. We determined the scope and target audience of the decision aid and formed a steering group. During design work, we used the decision-making process model as the guiding framework for selecting content. Parents' views and decisional needs were incorporated into the prototype through empirical research and review, appraisal, and synthesis of the literature. Clinicians' perspectives and insights were also incorporated. We used the experiential learning theory to guide the delivery of the content through a digital distribution plan. Following creation of initial content, including storyboards and scripts, an early prototype was redrafted and redesigned based on feedback from the steering group. A final TELL Tool prototype was then developed for alpha testing.

Conclusions

Detailing our early developmental processes provides transparency that can benefit the donor-conceived community as well as clinicians and researchers, especially those designing digital decision aids. Future research to evaluate the efficacy of the TELL Tool is planned.

Alpha Test of the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an alpha test of the prototype of a digital decision aid to help parents disclose donor conception to their children, the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking (TELL Tool).

DESIGN

Convergent mixed-methods design.

SETTING

Virtual interviews in places convenient to the participants.

PARTICIPANTS

A purposeful sample (N = 16) of nine gamete-donor and embryo-recipient parents and eight clinicians, as one parent was also a clinician.

METHODS

We conducted cognitive interviews to explore participants' perceptions about the TELL Tool prototype and observe patterns of use. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (i.e., usability, comprehensibility, and acceptability) guided the development of the qualitative interview guide and directed the qualitative analysis. We also collected data about participants' perceptions and ratings of the helpfulness of each of the prototype's webpages regarding parents' decision making about disclosure. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the helpfulness ratings before we merged the two data sets to optimize understanding.

RESULTS

Participants reported that the TELL Tool was a helpful digital decision aid to help parents tell their children how they were conceived. Most (93.7%) webpage rating scores indicated that the content was very helpful or helpful. The participants identified content and technical areas that needed refinement and provided specific recommendations such as adding concise instructions (usability), tailoring adolescent language (comprehensibility), and softening verbiage (acceptability).

CONCLUSION

Alpha testing guided by the International Patient Decision Aid standards was an essential step in refining and improving the TELL Tool prototype before beta testing.

OUP accepted manuscript

STUDY QUESTION

What information and support should be offered to donors, intended parents and donor-conceived people, in general and in consideration of the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and matching services?

SUMMARY ANSWER

For donors, intended parents and donor-conceived offspring, recommendations are made that cover information needs and informed consent, psychosocial implications and disclosure.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Trends indicate that the use of donor-assisted conception is growing and guidance is needed to help these recipients/intended parents, the donors and offspring, navigate the rapidly changing environment in which donor-assisted conception takes place.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations based, where available, on evidence collected from a literature search and expert opinion. Draft recommendations were published for stakeholder review and adapted where relevant based on the comments received.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Papers retrieved from PUBMED were included from 1 January 2014 up to 31 August 2020, focusing on studies published since direct-to-consumer genetic testing has become more widespread and accessible. The current paper is limited to reproductive donation performed in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres (and gamete banks): donation outside the medical context was not considered.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, 32 recommendations were made for information provision and support to donors, 32 for intended parents and 27 for donor-conceived offspring requesting information/support.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The available evidence in the area of reproductive donation is limited and diverse with regards to the context and types of donation. General conclusions and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and may need to be adapted in light of future research.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These recommendations provide guidance to MAR centres and gamete banks on good practice in information provision and support but should also be considered by regulatory bodies and policymakers at a national and international level to guide regulatory and legislative efforts towards the protection of donors and donor-conceived offspring.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The development of this good practice paper was funded by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), covering expenses associated with the WG meetings, the literature searches and dissemination. The WG members did not receive any payment. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.

The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

^†ESHRE pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Parents' experiences telling children conceived by gamete and embryo donation about their genetic origins

Objective

To gain an in-depth understanding of parents' experiences telling children conceived by gamete and embryo donation about their genetic origins.

Design

Qualitative, descriptive.

Setting

Families' homes.

Patients

Gamete or embryo donation recipient parents living in the United States and who told their children, from birth to 16 years, about their genetic origins.

Interventions

Individual semistructured (n = 12) or dyadic (n = 2) parent interviews.

Main Outcome Measures

Directed qualitative content analysis.

Results

Fourteen families that comprised 16 gamete or embryo donation recipient parents and represented 24 donor-conceived children between the ages of 4 months and 16 years participated in the study. Single parents (n = 3) and both parents in most two-parent families (n = 9) led the initial telling conversations. Parents recounted personal short stories using language that was both developmentally and medically appropriate. Multiple strategies, including children's books, were used by parents to aid them in their telling. The oldest donor-conceived children in each family were first informed of their genetic origins at birth (n = 10 families) or at 6 months (n = 1 family; "practice runs") or from 3.5 to 12 years (n = 3 families). The telling conversations took place during routine family activities that naturally brought parents and children in close proximity, usually in the home.

Conclusions

Awareness of the nuances of parents' telling conversations with their children through the age of 16 years can help guide clinical counseling and the development of tools to aid parents in their telling conversations.

Understanding parents' intention to disclose the donor conception to their child by application of the theory of planned behaviour

STUDY QUESTION

Does the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) contribute to understanding parents’ intention to share information about genetic origin with their donor-conceived child?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Parents’ intention to start disclosure was associated with beliefs that disclosure would have desired consequences and a desire to act in accordance to societal norms.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Despite a growing consensus on donor-conceived offspring’s right to information about their genetic origin, disclosure to the child remains a challenge for many parents, particularly heterosexual couples. TPB has successfully been applied to many health-related contexts and may contribute to increase understanding of parents’ decision-making about disclosing the genetic origin to their children.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A cross-sectional survey study of heterosexual couples with children aged 7–8 years following identity-release oocyte donation (OD, n = 83) or sperm donation (SD, n = 113).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The study is part of the prospective longitudinal Swedish Study on Gamete Donation. Couples accepted for oocyte or sperm donation treatment at seven fertility clinics were recruited in 2005–2008 and requested to complete four postal surveys in the following 10 years. The present study sample includes heterosexual couples with donor-conceived children aged 7–8 years. Data were collected with the study-specific TPB Disclosure Questionnaire and analysed with path analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

More than half of parents following OD or SD had already disclosed the donor conception to their child (OD 61%, SD 58%). Among parents who had not yet started the disclosure process, the belief that disclosure would have desired consequences (P < 0.05) and a desire to act in accordance to social norms favouring disclosure (P < 0.01) were positively associated with their intention to talk with their child about the donor conception during the upcoming year. In contrast, perceived confidence to talk with the child about his/her genetic origin was found to be negatively associated with the intention to start the disclosure process (P < 0.05). Type of treatment (OD/SD) and the existence or absence of a genetic link to the child were not directly associated with parents’ disclosure intentions.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was performed with heterosexual couples within the context of the Swedish legislation on identity-release donation, which limits the generalizability to other populations. Also, attrition may have introduced selection bias to the study findings. Future studies using the TPB Disclosure Questionnaire (TPB-DQ) with larger samples are needed to validate this measure.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Application of the theory of planned behaviour highlighted the importance of attitudes and social norms for parents’ intention to share information about the donor conception with their child. The present results add to the complexity of disclosure of donor conception, and may contribute to promote open communication and support family life following donor conception.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Financial support from the Swedish Research Council. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A

Self-image and social-image of the donors: Two different views from oocyte donors' eyes

To identify the perceptions of women oocyte donors this qualitative study was conducted on 30 oocyte donors using in-depth interview. The three main categories of decision-making challenge, the consequences of participation in assisted reproductive treatment, and the contrast between the self-image and social-image of the donor were inferred. Financial and altruistic motivation, social taboo, and the approval of trusted people were the sub-categories of the decision-making challenge. The results of the study showed that the decision for oocyte donation follows the effort of women to balance the financial and spiritual benefits of the donation against its cultural barriers.

Emerging Views of Kinships Created Through Oocyte Donation

BACKGROUND

The United States has the highest number of oocyte donation cycles, which account for an estimated one-quarter of all worldwide oocyte donation cycles. Although there has been a steady rise in oocyte donation treatment, understanding the kinship views of those intimately involved is lacking. These include women oocyte donors and parents who received donor oocytes to establish a pregnancy.

PURPOSE

To explore the views and perspectives about genetic relationships and lineages among women who were oocyte donors and parents who received donated oocytes 10 to 12 years after donors and parents underwent oocyte donation procedures to establish a pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A longitudinal cohort of pregnant women who received donor oocytes participated in an expanded, follow-up study 12 years postpregnancy that included the women's heterosexual partners and biological fathers. Women who donated oocytes anonymously 10 to 12 years prior also participated. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze participants' in-depth interviews.

RESULTS

Six women who received donor oocytes and their heterosexual partners and biological fathers (n = 6), representing 12 children conceived by oocyte donation, and 3 women who donated oocytes anonymously representing 3 children participated. Themes that emerged from the women oocyte donors included a reexamination of anonymity and contact with recipient families, managing disclosure to their own children about possible half-siblings, and potential for consanguinity. For recipient parents, there was an overwhelming sense of gratitude to the women oocyte donors, concerns about navigating genetic information gaps, and contemplating future contact with the donors and/or half-siblings.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Nurses can play a vital role in supporting and educating women oocyte donors and recipient parents about navigating complex relationship issues in donor kinships.