"just another form of giving back": motivations, awareness, and attitudes of potential...
TRANSCRIPT
"Just Another Form of Giving Back": Motivations, Awareness, and Attitudes of
Potential Oocyte Donors at Orientation
Lindsay B. Gezinski, PhD, MA, MSWSharvari Karandikar, PhD, MSW
James R. Carter, MPH
Presented at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting – New Orleans, LA
November 19, 2014
Presenter Disclosures
(1) The following personal financial relationships with commercial interests relevant to this presentation
existed during the past 12 months:
Lindsay Gezinski
“No relationships to disclose”
Literature Review• In vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques have a played widespread role
in the range of available fertility treatments in the United States (Kenney & McGowan, 2008).
• Through IVF, women are able to donate eggs to infertile women who cannot produce viable eggs (Winter & Daniluk, 2004).
• Egg donation involves administering drugs and injections such as Lupron to potential donors for producing eggs/oocytes.
• Egg donation unlike sperm donation requires longer commitments from donors and may have lasting side effects (Kenney & McGowan, 2008).
• Very little is known about the motivations and experiences of women who donate eggs.
Purpose of the Study
1. To understand women’s motivations to donate oocytes.
2. To assess awareness and knowledge of egg donation prior to entry into the oocyte donation program.
3. To explore attitudes toward oocyte donation.
Methodology• 92 prospective oocyte donors completed the questionnaire
prior to orientation at one fertility clinic located in the Midwest.
• The survey instrument took approximately 15 minutes to complete and consisted of 37 items.
• Data was collected from August 2011 to August 2012.
• Responses were entered in SPSS. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data.
• Textual analysis was used to identify themes for open-ended survey items.
Results: Description of Samplen (%) Mean (Range)
Age (years) 25.6 (21-32)
Number of Children 0.7 (1-4)
Race
African American 13 (14.4)
Asian 1 (1.1)
White 68 (75.6)
Multi-Racial 8 (8.9)
Education
High School Diploma/GED 12 (13.0)
Some College 35 (38)
Associate’s Degree 11 (12.0)
Bachelor’s Degree 28 (30.4)
Master’s Degree 4 (4.3)
PhD or Professional Degree 2 (2.2)
Currently a Student
No 55 (60.4)
Yes, part-time 13 (14.3)
Yes, full-time 23 (25.3)
n (%)
Occupation
No Answer 17 (18.5)
Service 23 (25.0)
Administrative 13 (14.1)
Labor 6 (6.5)
Home-Based 2 (2.2)
Technically Skilled 29 (31.5)
Student 2 (2.2)
Married or Committed Relationship
Yes 59 (64.1)
No 33 (35.9)
First Learned
No Answer 18 (19.6)
Friend 28 (30.4)
Relative 4 (4.3)
Agency 2 (2.2)
Electronic Medium 38 (41.3)
Educational System 2 (2.2)
Results: Description of Sample
Motivations
• Approximately 98 percent of participants ranked “helping others to have children” as significant to their decision.
• 81.32 percent indicated that the offer of payment was significant to their decision to donate oocytes.
• Level of payment was reported as:– “Just about right” by 89.0 percent– “Too much” by 7.7 percent– “Too little” by 2.2 percent
Altruistic Motivation• 89 percent of participants indicated their aspiration to help
infertile couples.
– “[I] feel that it would be good contribution to deserving folks. also donate blood regularly. I guess its [sic] just another form of giving back.”
• 20 percent reported personal exposure to acquaintance, friend, or family member who had struggled with infertility.
– “good friend and sister have a lot of problems having a child. my friend went through a successful egg donation which motivated me to donate for people like her!”
Financial Motivation
• 48.35 percent of participants wrote about financial need as a motivator.
• Participants stated that compensation would be used for school loans and tuition, medical debt, and to buy a house.
– "feels comfortable with procdure [sic] and is small investment of time for the financial compensation awarded."
Pass on Genetic Material
• 23.08 percent indicated desire to pass on their genetic material, because they either had no desire to have children themselves or they were done having their own children.
• "As a student pursuing a professional degree and an extremely career-motivated person, I'm not certain that having my own children will be part of my future. That being said, I'd like to contribute to the next generation."
Awareness of Physical & Psychological Risks
• 67 percent indicated awareness of physical risks.
• 65.48 percent reported the perceived severity of physical risks as somewhat minor to very minor.
• Mothers were less aware (χ2=24.806, df=2, p=.000)
• Educated were more aware (χ2=9.643, df=2, p=.008)
• 54 percent indicated awareness of psychological risks.
• 69.51 percent reported the perceived severity of psychological risks as somewhat minor to very minor.
• Mothers were less aware (χ2=9.475, df=2, p=.009)
Information-Giving Attitudes
• 81.1 percent agreed that "the recipients should receive some information about the donor.
• While 28.1 percent of participants felt that "offspring should receive some information about the donor as a mature adult", approximately 23 percent disagreed with this statement and close to half were 'neutral'.
• Significant differences between mothers and childless adults– “Donor should be informed if the donation results in a child”– “It is in the best interest of the child…to learn (as an adult) the
identity of the donor”
Limitations• Participants may have completed the questionnaire in a
manner that they felt would be desirable to the clinic.
• This study has limited generalizability, because this study sampled women at one fertility clinic only. – This study cannot be generalized to the larger population
of oocyte donors.
• Cross-sectional nature of research study is a limitation, as women’s attitudes may change over time.
Implications• For Practice
– Fertility clinics should tailor orientation differently for different groups.
• For Policy – Policy should be developed to ensure all parties are
protected at sufficient levels.
• For Research– Longitudinal research is needed that examines
psychological and health consequences post-donation.
Contact Information
• Lindsay Gezinski, Ph.D. – [email protected]
• Sharvari Karandikar, Ph.D.– [email protected]
• Thank You!