Information access and donated gametes

How much do we know about who wants to know?

Pia Broderick, Iain Walker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper reviews the methodological adequacy of the psychosocial literature on information access when donated gametes and embryos are used. In all, 10 major flaws were identified: (i) sample sizes were too small, (ii) sample selection procedures were ad hoc, (iii) there were no comparisons between current and past donors and recipients, (iv) there were no comparisons between current donors and recipients in the one study, (v) studies relied on just one partner from a recipient couple, (vi) donor motivation was assessed crudely, (vii) studies failed to clarify what was identifying and non-identifying information, (viii) links between researchers and clinics may have influenced respondents, (ix) response measurement was crude, and (x) data analysis was limited and basic. It is argued that these flaws prohibit any firm conclusions to be drawn either way about whether donors and recipients should disclose information, whether they should have access to information, or even whether donors and recipients want to have access to information about each other or to have information about themselves disclosed to the other party.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3338-3341
Number of pages4
JournalHuman Reproduction
Volume10
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 1995
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Access to Information
Germ Cells
Sample Size
Embryonic Structures
Research Personnel
Surveys and Questionnaires
Haemophilus influenzae type b-polysaccharide vaccine-diphtheria toxoid conjugate

Cite this

@article{72cace924b0a422581d2e5fc4b5fc6af,
title = "Information access and donated gametes: How much do we know about who wants to know?",
abstract = "This paper reviews the methodological adequacy of the psychosocial literature on information access when donated gametes and embryos are used. In all, 10 major flaws were identified: (i) sample sizes were too small, (ii) sample selection procedures were ad hoc, (iii) there were no comparisons between current and past donors and recipients, (iv) there were no comparisons between current donors and recipients in the one study, (v) studies relied on just one partner from a recipient couple, (vi) donor motivation was assessed crudely, (vii) studies failed to clarify what was identifying and non-identifying information, (viii) links between researchers and clinics may have influenced respondents, (ix) response measurement was crude, and (x) data analysis was limited and basic. It is argued that these flaws prohibit any firm conclusions to be drawn either way about whether donors and recipients should disclose information, whether they should have access to information, or even whether donors and recipients want to have access to information about each other or to have information about themselves disclosed to the other party.",
keywords = "Access/psychosocial aspects, Assisted, Embryos/information, Gametes, Reproduction/donated",
author = "Pia Broderick and Iain Walker",
year = "1995",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135916",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "3338--3341",
journal = "Human Reproduction",
issn = "0268-1161",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "12",

}

Information access and donated gametes : How much do we know about who wants to know? / Broderick, Pia; Walker, Iain.

In: Human Reproduction, Vol. 10, No. 12, 01.01.1995, p. 3338-3341.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Information access and donated gametes

T2 - How much do we know about who wants to know?

AU - Broderick, Pia

AU - Walker, Iain

PY - 1995/1/1

Y1 - 1995/1/1

N2 - This paper reviews the methodological adequacy of the psychosocial literature on information access when donated gametes and embryos are used. In all, 10 major flaws were identified: (i) sample sizes were too small, (ii) sample selection procedures were ad hoc, (iii) there were no comparisons between current and past donors and recipients, (iv) there were no comparisons between current donors and recipients in the one study, (v) studies relied on just one partner from a recipient couple, (vi) donor motivation was assessed crudely, (vii) studies failed to clarify what was identifying and non-identifying information, (viii) links between researchers and clinics may have influenced respondents, (ix) response measurement was crude, and (x) data analysis was limited and basic. It is argued that these flaws prohibit any firm conclusions to be drawn either way about whether donors and recipients should disclose information, whether they should have access to information, or even whether donors and recipients want to have access to information about each other or to have information about themselves disclosed to the other party.

AB - This paper reviews the methodological adequacy of the psychosocial literature on information access when donated gametes and embryos are used. In all, 10 major flaws were identified: (i) sample sizes were too small, (ii) sample selection procedures were ad hoc, (iii) there were no comparisons between current and past donors and recipients, (iv) there were no comparisons between current donors and recipients in the one study, (v) studies relied on just one partner from a recipient couple, (vi) donor motivation was assessed crudely, (vii) studies failed to clarify what was identifying and non-identifying information, (viii) links between researchers and clinics may have influenced respondents, (ix) response measurement was crude, and (x) data analysis was limited and basic. It is argued that these flaws prohibit any firm conclusions to be drawn either way about whether donors and recipients should disclose information, whether they should have access to information, or even whether donors and recipients want to have access to information about each other or to have information about themselves disclosed to the other party.

KW - Access/psychosocial aspects

KW - Assisted

KW - Embryos/information

KW - Gametes

KW - Reproduction/donated

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029561876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135916

DO - 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135916

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 3338

EP - 3341

JO - Human Reproduction

JF - Human Reproduction

SN - 0268-1161

IS - 12

ER -