Dataset Information

Exploring the knowledge and attitudes of women of reproductive age from the general public towards egg donation and egg sharing: a UK-based study.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

What are the knowledge and views of UK-based women towards egg donation (ED) and egg sharing (ES)?

Summary answer

Lacking knowledge of the practices of ED and ES could be an influential factor in donor egg shortages, rather than negative perceptions or lack of donor anonymity and financial incentives.

What is known already

The increasing age of women trying to conceive has led to donor egg shortages, with ED and ES failing to meet demand. Indeed, in recent years in the UK, ES numbers have fallen. This results in long waiting lists, forcing patients abroad for fertility treatment to take up cross border reproductive care. Previous research suggests a lack of knowledge of ED among members of the general public; however, no study has yet assessed knowledge or views of ES in the general public.

Study design, size, duration

Six hundred and thirty-five UK-based women over 18 years were voluntarily recruited from social media community groups by convenience sampling. The recruitment period was from February to April 2020.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Participants completed a previously validated questionnaire regarding female fertility, ED and ES, including knowledge, perceptions and approval of the practices and relevant legislation. This included ranking key benefits and issues regarding egg sharing. The questionnaire was completed using the online Qualtrics survey software. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS.

Main results and the role of chance

Regarding knowledge of ED and ES, 56.3% and 79.8%, respectively had little or no prior knowledge. Upon explanation, most approved of ED (85.8%) and ES (70.4%). A greater proportion of respondents would donate to a family member/friend (49.75%) than to an anonymous recipient (35.80%). Overall, ES was viewed less favourably than ED, with ethical and practical concerns highlighted. Women aged 18-30 years were significantly more likely to approve of egg donation practice compared to those aged >30 years (P < 0.0001). Those against ES found fears of financial coercion or negative psychological wellbeing the most concerning. About 35.8% and 49.7% would personally consider anonymous and known ED, respectively, whilst 56.7% would consider ES. Those answering in favour of egg sharing were significantly more likely to give higher benefit ratings compared to those against the practice (P < 0.001). Most agreed (55.8%) with and were not deterred to donate (60.1%) by the 'Disclosure of Donor Identity' legislation. Only 31.6% agreed with the compensatory cap; however, 52.7% would not be more motivated to donate by an increased cap.

Limitations, reasons for caution

There were several limitations of the study, including the use of convenience sampling and the voluntary nature of participation opening the study up to sampling and participation bias. Finally, closed questions were predominantly used to allow the generation of quantitative data and statistical analysis. However, this approach prevented opinion justification and qualitative analysis, limiting the depth of conclusions drawn.

Wider implications of the findings

To our knowledge, this is the first study to survey the general public's knowledge and views of ED/ES using a previously validated questionnaire. The conclusion that lack of knowledge could be contributing to the current donor shortfall in the UK demonstrates that campaigns to inform women of the practices are necessary to alleviate donor oocyte shortages.

Study funding/competing interest(s)

No external funds were used for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Trial registration number

NA.

SUBMITTER: Bracewell-Milnes T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8648294 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionDoes an informed group of citizens endorse the clinical use of mitochondrial donation in a country where this is not currently permitted?Summary answerAfter hearing balanced expert evidence and having opportunity for deliberation, a majority (11/14) of participants in a citizens' jury believed that children should be able to be born using mitochondrial donation.What is known alreadyResearch suggests that patients, oocyte donors and health professionals support mitochondrial donation to prevent transmission of mitochondrial disease. Less is known about public acceptability of this novel reproductive technology, especially from evidence using deliberative methods.Study design, size, durationThis study comprised a citizens' jury, an established method for determining the views of a well-informed group of community members. The jury had 14 participants, and ran over one and a half days in 2017.Participants/materials, setting, methodsJurors were members of the public with no experience of mitochondrial disease. They heard and engaged with relevant evidence and were asked to answer the question: 'Should Australia allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation?'Main results and the role of chanceEleven jurors decided that Australia should allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation; 7 of whom added conditions such as the need to limit who can access the intervention. Three jurors decided that children should not (or not yet) be born using this intervention. All jurors were particularly interested in the reliability of evidence, licensing/regulatory mechanisms and the rights of children to access information about their oocyte donors.Limitations, reasons for cautionJurors' views were well informed and reflected critical deliberation and discussion, but are not intended to be representative of the whole population.Wider implications of the findingsWhen presented with high quality evidence, combined with opportunities to undertake structured deliberation of novel reproductive technologies, members of the public are able to engage in detailed discussions. This is the first study to use an established deliberative method to gauge public views towards mitochondrial donation.Study funding/competing interest(s)This study was funded by a University of Sydney Industry and Community Collaboration Seed Award (2017), which was awarded contingent on additional funding from the Mito Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the Mito Foundation. The Foundation was not involved in jury facilitation or deliberation, nor analysis of research data.Trial registration numberNot applicable.

Project description:BackgroundPatients' willingness to discuss costs of treatment alternatives with their physicians is uncertain.ObjectiveTo explore public attitudes toward doctor-patient discussions of insurer and out-of-pocket costs and to examine whether several possible communication strategies might enhance patient receptivity to discussing costs with their physicians.DesignFocus group discussions and pre-discussion and post-discussion questionnaires.ParticipantsTwo hundred and eleven insured individuals with mean age of 48 years, 51 % female, 34 % African American, 27 % Latino, and 50 % with incomes below 300 % of the federal poverty threshold, participated in 22 focus groups in Santa Monica, CA and in the Washington, DC metro area.Main measurementsAttitudes toward discussing out-of-pocket and insurer costs with physicians, and towards physicians' role in controlling costs; receptivity toward recommended communication strategies regarding costs.Key resultsParticipants expressed more willingness to talk to doctors about personal costs than insurer costs. Older participants and sicker participants were more willing to talk to the doctor about all costs than younger and healthier participants (OR = 1.8, p = 0.004; OR = 1.6, p = 0.027 respectively). Participants who face cost-related barriers to accessing health care were in greater agreement than others that doctors should play a role in reducing out-of-pocket costs (OR = 2.4, p = 0.011). Participants did not endorse recommended communication strategies for discussing costs in the clinical encounter. In contrast, participants stated that trust in one's physician would enhance their willingness to discuss costs. Perceived impediments to discussing costs included rushed, impersonal visits, and clinicians who are insufficiently informed about costs.ConclusionsThis study suggests that trusting relationships may be more conducive than any particular discussion strategy to facilitating doctor-patient discussions of health care costs. Better public understanding of how medical decisions affect insurer costs and how such costs ultimately affect patients personally will be necessary if discussions about insurer costs are to occur in the clinical encounter.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Early bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is one of the most important predictors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) survival. There is a dearth of literature on CPR engagement in countries such as Ghana, where cardiovascular events are increasingly prevalent. In this study, we sought to evaluate Ghanaians' knowledge of and attitudes towards bystander CPR, in the context of the country's nascent emergency medicine network. METHODS:Capitalizing on the growing ubiquity and use of social media across the country, we used a novel social media sampling strategy for this study. We created, pre-tested, and distributed an online survey, using the two most utilized social media platforms in Ghana: WhatsApp and Facebook. An airtime data incentive of 5 US dollars, worth between 5 and 10 GB of cellular data based on mobile phone carrier, was provided as incentive. Inclusion criteria were (1) ? 18 years of age, (2) living in Ghana. Survey participants were encouraged to distribute the survey within their own networks to expand its reach. We stratified participants' responses by healthcare affiliation, and further grouped healthcare workers into ambulance and non-ambulance personnel. We used chi-square (?2)/Fisher's Exact tests to compare differences in responses between the groups. Based on the question "have you ever heard of CPR?", an alpha of 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval, we expected to have 80% power to detect a 15% difference in responses between lay and healthcare providers with an estimated sample size of 246 study participants. RESULTS:The survey was launched on 8 July 2019 and closed approximately 51 h post-launch. With a 64% completion rate and 479 unique survey completions, the study was overpowered at 96% power, to detect differences in responses between the groups. There was geographic representation across all 10 historic regions of Ghana. Over half (57.8%, n = 277) of the respondents were non-medically affiliated, and 71.9% were women. Healthcare workers were more aware of CPR than lay respondents (96.5% vs 68.1%; p < 0.001). Eighty-five percent of respondents were aware that CPR involves chest compressions, and almost 70% indicated that "mouth to mouth" is a necessary component of CPR. Fewer than 10% were unwilling to administer CPR. Lack of skills (44.9%) and fear of causing harm (25.5%) were barriers noted by respondents for not administering CPR. Notably, a quarter of ambulance workers reported never having received CPR training. If they were to witness a collapse, 62.0% would call an ambulance, and 32.6% would hail a taxi. CONCLUSION:The majority of participants are willing to perform CPR. Contextualized training that emphasizes hands-only CPR and builds participants' confidence may increase bystander willingness and engagement.