在供体受孕者、父母和供体中寻找与供体受孕相关的人的相关因素:系统回顾

Astrid Indekeu Ph.D. , A.Janneke.B.M. Maas Ph.D. , Emily McCormick M.P.H , Jean Benward M.S. , Joanna E. Scheib Ph.D.
{"title":"在供体受孕者、父母和供体中寻找与供体受孕相关的人的相关因素:系统回顾","authors":"Astrid Indekeu Ph.D. ,&nbsp;A.Janneke.B.M. Maas Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Emily McCormick M.P.H ,&nbsp;Jean Benward M.S. ,&nbsp;Joanna E. Scheib Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.xfnr.2021.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To review the body of literature to summarize the existing knowledge about factors that shape gamete donor linking and discuss their implications for clinical care and future research. Recent changes in policy, practice, and technology have made it possible for individuals connected through donor conception—donor-conceived (DC) people, parents, and donors—to find and contact one another.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence Review</h3><p>A bibliographic search of English, French, German, Spanish, and Dutch language peer-reviewed publications was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews<span><span> and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science Core Collection. The inclusion criteria were as follows: original empirical research with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods; research participants were DC people, gamete donors, and/or parents interested in searching for people (genetically) related to them through gamete donation; and a substantial part of the article focused on searching for or an interest in contacting donor-related people. The exclusion criteria were as follows: publications other than original peer-reviewed research and publications on known donors and </span>surrogacy. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for quantitative studies. Eligibility assessments, quality assessments, and data extraction were independently performed by 2 teams, with disagreements resolved by discussion.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>An initial search yielded 4,040 publications, of which 119 articles were full-text screened and 47 studies were included for review. The studies were diverse in design, setting, recruitment methods, data collection, and stakeholder groups. The DC people, parents, and donors of the studies included had an interest in each other; however, their motives, desired information, and/or expectations regarding their interest and/or seeking contact differed. Among the participants in the studies, the interests of the DC people, parents, and donors were intertwined and not necessarily in conflict. Methodological limitations of the included studies were identified.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Donor linking occurred in a complex array of several factors: psychosocial, sociodemographic, relational, and environmental variables. Further research is needed to better understand the relative influence of these variables and identify the psychosocial needs of the different groups. Preliminary findings showed that stakeholders can have an interest in an ongoing contact. However, the studies’ methodological shortcomings limited the extent to which these findings could be applied to all people interested in donor-related contact. Follow-up research is needed on what happens after parties are linked.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73011,"journal":{"name":"F&S reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.xfnr.2021.01.003","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors associated with searching for people related through donor conception among donor-conceived people, parents, and donors: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Astrid Indekeu Ph.D. ,&nbsp;A.Janneke.B.M. Maas Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Emily McCormick M.P.H ,&nbsp;Jean Benward M.S. ,&nbsp;Joanna E. Scheib Ph.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xfnr.2021.01.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To review the body of literature to summarize the existing knowledge about factors that shape gamete donor linking and discuss their implications for clinical care and future research. Recent changes in policy, practice, and technology have made it possible for individuals connected through donor conception—donor-conceived (DC) people, parents, and donors—to find and contact one another.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence Review</h3><p>A bibliographic search of English, French, German, Spanish, and Dutch language peer-reviewed publications was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews<span><span> and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science Core Collection. The inclusion criteria were as follows: original empirical research with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods; research participants were DC people, gamete donors, and/or parents interested in searching for people (genetically) related to them through gamete donation; and a substantial part of the article focused on searching for or an interest in contacting donor-related people. The exclusion criteria were as follows: publications other than original peer-reviewed research and publications on known donors and </span>surrogacy. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for quantitative studies. Eligibility assessments, quality assessments, and data extraction were independently performed by 2 teams, with disagreements resolved by discussion.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>An initial search yielded 4,040 publications, of which 119 articles were full-text screened and 47 studies were included for review. The studies were diverse in design, setting, recruitment methods, data collection, and stakeholder groups. The DC people, parents, and donors of the studies included had an interest in each other; however, their motives, desired information, and/or expectations regarding their interest and/or seeking contact differed. Among the participants in the studies, the interests of the DC people, parents, and donors were intertwined and not necessarily in conflict. Methodological limitations of the included studies were identified.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Donor linking occurred in a complex array of several factors: psychosocial, sociodemographic, relational, and environmental variables. Further research is needed to better understand the relative influence of these variables and identify the psychosocial needs of the different groups. Preliminary findings showed that stakeholders can have an interest in an ongoing contact. However, the studies’ methodological shortcomings limited the extent to which these findings could be applied to all people interested in donor-related contact. Follow-up research is needed on what happens after parties are linked.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73011,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"F&S reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.xfnr.2021.01.003\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"F&S reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571921000050\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F&S reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571921000050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

目的回顾相关文献,总结影响配子供体连接的因素,并讨论其对临床护理和未来研究的意义。最近在政策、实践和技术方面的变化使得通过捐赠者受孕(DC)人、父母和捐赠者相互联系成为可能。根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,使用电子数据库PubMed、EMBASE和Web of Science Core Collection,对英语、法语、德语、西班牙语和荷兰语的同行评议出版物进行书目检索。纳入标准如下:采用定量、定性或混合方法的原始实证研究;研究参与者是DC人、配子捐赠者和/或有兴趣通过配子捐赠寻找与他们(遗传)相关的人的父母;文章的大部分内容都集中在寻找或有兴趣联系与捐赠者相关的人。排除标准如下:除原始同行评议研究以外的出版物以及关于已知捐赠者和代孕的出版物。方法质量评估使用定性研究的关键评估技能程序检查表和定量研究的乔安娜布里格斯研究所关键评估检查表。资格评估、质量评估和数据提取由两个小组独立进行,分歧通过讨论解决。结果初步检索得到4040篇出版物,其中119篇文章被全文筛选,47篇研究被纳入综述。这些研究在设计、环境、招募方法、数据收集和利益相关者群体方面各不相同。参与研究的DC人员、家长和捐赠者对彼此都有兴趣;然而,他们的动机、需要的信息和/或对他们的兴趣和/或寻求联系的期望是不同的。在研究的参与者中,DC人、父母和捐赠者的利益是相互交织的,不一定是冲突的。确定了纳入研究的方法学局限性。结论供体连接的发生有多种复杂的因素:心理社会、社会人口、关系和环境变量。需要进一步研究,以更好地了解这些变量的相对影响,并确定不同群体的社会心理需求。初步调查结果表明,利益相关者可能对正在进行的接触感兴趣。然而,这些研究方法上的缺陷限制了这些研究结果适用于所有对捐赠者相关接触感兴趣的人的程度。需要进行后续研究,了解双方联系起来后会发生什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Factors associated with searching for people related through donor conception among donor-conceived people, parents, and donors: a systematic review

Objective

To review the body of literature to summarize the existing knowledge about factors that shape gamete donor linking and discuss their implications for clinical care and future research. Recent changes in policy, practice, and technology have made it possible for individuals connected through donor conception—donor-conceived (DC) people, parents, and donors—to find and contact one another.

Evidence Review

A bibliographic search of English, French, German, Spanish, and Dutch language peer-reviewed publications was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science Core Collection. The inclusion criteria were as follows: original empirical research with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods; research participants were DC people, gamete donors, and/or parents interested in searching for people (genetically) related to them through gamete donation; and a substantial part of the article focused on searching for or an interest in contacting donor-related people. The exclusion criteria were as follows: publications other than original peer-reviewed research and publications on known donors and surrogacy. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for quantitative studies. Eligibility assessments, quality assessments, and data extraction were independently performed by 2 teams, with disagreements resolved by discussion.

Results

An initial search yielded 4,040 publications, of which 119 articles were full-text screened and 47 studies were included for review. The studies were diverse in design, setting, recruitment methods, data collection, and stakeholder groups. The DC people, parents, and donors of the studies included had an interest in each other; however, their motives, desired information, and/or expectations regarding their interest and/or seeking contact differed. Among the participants in the studies, the interests of the DC people, parents, and donors were intertwined and not necessarily in conflict. Methodological limitations of the included studies were identified.

Conclusion

Donor linking occurred in a complex array of several factors: psychosocial, sociodemographic, relational, and environmental variables. Further research is needed to better understand the relative influence of these variables and identify the psychosocial needs of the different groups. Preliminary findings showed that stakeholders can have an interest in an ongoing contact. However, the studies’ methodological shortcomings limited the extent to which these findings could be applied to all people interested in donor-related contact. Follow-up research is needed on what happens after parties are linked.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
F&S reviews
F&S reviews Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Urology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
61 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信