Volume 21, Issue 6 ( June 2023 2023)                   IJRM 2023, 21(6): 451-462 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Jafari H, Taghipour A, Ebrahimipour H, Latifnejad Roudsari R. Women’s needs in their journey towards motherhood via oocyte donation: A mixed methods systematic review. IJRM 2023; 21 (6) :451-462
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-2630-en.html
Women’s needs in their journey towards motherhood via oocyte donation: A mixed methods systematic review
Hamideh Jafari1 , Ali Taghipour2 , Hosein Ebrahimipour3 , Robab Latifnejad Roudsari * 4
1- Student Research Committee, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
2- Social Determinants of Health Research Centre, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Department of Epidemiology, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
3- Social Determinants of Health Research Centre, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
4- Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. , rlatifnejad@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (687 Views)
Background: Given the significant changes in family formation through donation procedures, providing an optimal level of care that is responsive to the needs of mothers who get pregnant via oocyte donation is pivotal to improve their maternal role. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the needs of oocyte donation mothers to address their specific needs.
Objective: This study aimed to review the needs of women in their journey towards motherhood via oocyte donation.
Materials and Methods: In this systematic review, which followed the updated Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodological guidance for conducting a mixed methods systematic review, the quantitative observational and qualitative studies were searched through databases including PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, the Cochran Library, and Google Scholar search engine. Letters to the editor, commentaries, magazine articles, articles without full text and abstracts presented in congresses were excluded. All English-language articles related to the needs of oocyte donation mothers, without time limitation, were reviewed. The eligible studies were critically appraised independently by 2 researchers.
Results: 4649 records were identified from those 18 articles were finally included in the review. The needs of oocyte donation mothers comprised 8 categories: The need for special services in fertility clinics, the need to improve the quality of care, the need for emotional support and psychological consultation, information needs, the need for financial support, the need for disclosure counseling, educational needs, and the need for sociocultural and religious support.
Conclusion: This review suggests various needs of oocyte donation mothers. The results can be used in carefully planning supportive programs for this vulnerable population.
Keywords: Need, Women, Oocyte donation, Motherhood.
Full-Text [PDF 321 kb]   (647 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (92 Views)  
Type of Study: Review Article | Subject: Fertility & Infertility
References
1. Deomampo D. Racialized commodities: Race and value in human egg donation. Med Anthropol 2019; 38: 620-633. [DOI:10.1080/01459740.2019.1570188] [PMID]
2. Imrie S, Jadva V, Golombok S. "Making the child mine": Mothers' thoughts and feelings about the mother-infant relationship in egg donation families. J Fam Psychol 2020; 34: 469-479. [DOI:10.1037/fam0000619] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Melnick AP, Rosenwaks Z. Oocyte donation: Insights gleaned and future challenges. Int J Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 988-993. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.09.021] [PMID]
4. Applegarth LD, Kaufman NL, Josephs-Sohan M, Christos PJ, Rosenwaks Z. Parental disclosure to offspring created with oocyte donation: Intentions versus reality. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 1809-1815. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dew125] [PMID]
5. Becker G, Butler A, Nachtigall RD. Resemblance talk: A challenge for parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the US. Soc Sci Med 2005; 61: 1300-1309. [DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.01.018] [PMID]
6. French LR, Sharp DJ, Turner KM. Antenatal needs of couples following fertility treatment: A qualitative study in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2015; 65: e570-e577. [DOI:10.3399/bjgp15X686473] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Sälevaara M, Punamäki R-L, Poikkeus P, Flykt M, Tulppala M, Tiitinen A. Fear and experience of childbirth among women who conceived with donated oocytes: A prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2016; 95: 755-762. [DOI:10.1111/aogs.12888] [PMID]
8. Hershberger P. Recipients of oocyte donation: An integrative review. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2004; 33: 610-621. [DOI:10.1177/0884217504268524] [PMID]
9. Hadizadeh-Talasaz F, Simbar M, Roudsari RL. Exploring infertile couples' decisions to disclose donor conception to the future child. Int J Fertil Steril 2020; 14: 240-246.
10. Sälevaara M, Punamäki R-L, Unkila‐Kallio L, Vänskä M, Tulppala M, Tiitinen A. The mental health of mothers and fathers during pregnancy and early parenthood after successful oocyte donation treatment: A nested case‐control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97: 1478-1485. [DOI:10.1111/aogs.13421] [PMID]
11. Crawshaw M, Daniels K. Revisiting the use of 'counselling' as a means of preparing prospective parents to meet the emerging psychosocial needs of families that have used gamete donation. Fam Relat Soc 2019; 8: 395-409. [DOI:10.1332/204674318X15313158773308]
12. Warmelink JC, Adema W, Pranger A, de Cock TP. Client perspectives of midwifery care in the transition from subfertility to parenthood: A qualitative study in the Netherlands. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 37: 12-20. [DOI:10.3109/0167482X.2015.1106474] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. Younger M, Hollins-Martin C, Choucri L. Individualised care for women with assisted conception pregnancies and midwifery practice implications: An analysis of the existing research and current practice. Midwifery 2015; 31: 265-270. [DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2014.06.008] [PMID]
14. Stern C, Lizarondo L, Carrier J, Godfrey Ch, Rieger K, Salmond S, et al. Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020; 18: 2108-2118. [DOI:10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00169] [PMID]
15. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012. [DOI:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008] [PMID]
16. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 2014; 12: 1495-1499. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013] [PMID]
17. Joanna Briggs Institute. JBI QARI critical appraisal checklist for interpretive and critical research. Available at: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools.
18. Hammond K. The role of normative ideologies of motherhood in intended mothers' experiences of egg donation in Canada. Anthropol Med 2018; 25: 265-279. [DOI:10.1080/13648470.2018.1507483] [PMID]
19. Scully JL, Banks S, Song R, Haq J. Experiences of faith group members using new reproductive and genetic technologies: A qualitative interview study. Hum Fertil 2017; 20: 22-29. [DOI:10.1080/14647273.2016.1243816] [PMID]
20. Ahuja KK, Mostyn BJ, Simons EG. Egg sharing and egg donation: Attitudes of British egg donors and recipients. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 2845-2852. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/12.12.2845] [PMID]
21. Hershberger PE. Pregnant, donor oocyte recipient women describe their lived experience of establishing the "family lexicon". J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2007; 36: 161-167. [DOI:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00128.x] [PMID]
22. Hershberger PE, Driessnack M, Kavanaugh K, Klock SC. Emerging views of kinships created through oocyte donation. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2020; 45: 18-24. [DOI:10.1097/NMC.0000000000000586] [PMID]
23. Hershberger PE, Kavanaugh K. Enhancing pregnant, donor oocyte recipient women's health in the infertility clinic and beyond: A phenomenological investigation of caring behaviour. J Clin Nurs 2008; 17: 2820-2828. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02211.x] [PMID] [PMCID]
24. Latifnejad Roudsari R, Jafari H, Taghipour A, Khadem N, Ebrahimzdeh S. [The association of religious beliefs in infertile couples' attitude towards donation procedures and its selection as a therapeutic approach to infertility]. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2013; 16: 1-10. (in Persian)
25. Eyzadyar N, Ahmadnia Sh, Seyedmirzaei SM, Azin SA, Yazdani Safa M. [To choose the oocyte donation as a way of becoming a mother (Phenomenological study of infertile women's in Royan Institute)]. J Iran Soc Stud 2014; 8: 6-21. (in Persian)
26. Jafari H, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Taghipour A, Khadem Ghaebi N, Ebrahim Zadeh S. [Comparison of knowledge and attitude towards reproductive donation procedures between recipient and non-recipient infertile couples at Mashhad Infertility Center]. J Torbat Heydariyeh Univ Med Sci 2015; 3: 16-25. (in Persian)
27. Bagheri-Lankarani N, Zarei F, Zandi M, Omani Samani R, Karimi M. The experiences of women fertilized through egg donation during their treatment process. Evid Based Care J 2016; 6: 63-70.
28. Ghelich-Khani Sh, Kazemi A, Fereidooni-Moghadam M, Alavi M. Psycho-social experience of oocyte recipient women: A qualitative study. BMC Women's Health 2021; 21: 406. [DOI:10.1186/s12905-021-01562-4] [PMID] [PMCID]
29. Van Berkel D, Candido A, Pijffers WH. Becoming a mother by non-anonymous egg donation: Secrecy and the relationship between egg recipient, egg donor and egg donation child. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 28: 97-104. [DOI:10.1080/01674820701409868] [PMID]
30. Laruelle C, Place I, Demeestere I, Englert Y, Delbaere A. Anonymity and secrecy options of recipient couples and donors, and ethnic origin influence in three types of oocyte donation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 382-390. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deq346] [PMID]
31. Isaksson S, Sydsjö G, Skoog Svanberg A, Lampic C. Disclosure behaviour and intentions among 111 couples following treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors: Follow-up at offspring age 1-4 years. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 2998-3007. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/des285] [PMID] [PMCID]
32. Imrie S, Golombok S. Long-term outcomes of children conceived through egg donation and their parents: A review of the literature. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 1187-1193. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.040] [PMID]
33. Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Bora Sh, Ismail AM, Al-Memar M, Hamed AH, et al. Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2016; 22: 450-465. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmw006] [PMID]
34. Hogan RG, Hammarberg K, Wang AY, Sullivan EA. 'Battery hens' or 'nuggets of gold': A qualitative study on the barriers and enablers for altruistic egg donation. Hum Fertil 2022; 25: 688-696. [DOI:10.1080/14647273.2021.1873430] [PMID]
35. van Empel IWH, Nelen WLDM, Tepe ET, van Laarhoven EAP, Verhaak ChM, Kremer JAM. Weaknesses, strengths and needs in fertility care according to patients. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 142-149. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dep362] [PMID]
36. Golombok S, Blake L, Casey P, Roman G, Jadva V. Children born through reproductive donation: A longitudinal study of psychological adjustment. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013; 54: 653-660. [DOI:10.1111/jcpp.12015] [PMID] [PMCID]
37. Carter JR, Gezinski L, Karandikar Sh. A comprehensive review of reproductive egg donation web sites. J Consum Health Internet 2012; 16: 53-65. [DOI:10.1080/15398285.2012.647604]
38. Marre D, San Román B, Guerra D. On reproductive work in Spain: Transnational adoption, egg donation, surrogacy. Med Anthropol 2018; 37: 158-173. [DOI:10.1080/01459740.2017.1361947] [PMID]
39. Cordier C, Ducrocq B, Fry J, Catteau-Jonard S. Views of French oocyte donors at least 3 years after donation. Reprod BioMed Online 2020; 40: 819-826. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.02.003] [PMID]
40. García D, Bautista O, Venereo L, Coll O, Vassena R, Vernaeve V. Training in empathic skills improves the patient-physician relationship during the first consultation in a fertility clinic. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 1413-1418. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.012] [PMID]
41. Hadizadeh-Talasaz F, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Simbar M. Decision for disclosure: The experiences of Iranian infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive donation procedures. Hum Fertil 2015; 18: 265-275. [DOI:10.3109/14647273.2015.1076579] [PMID]
42. Latifnejad Roudsari R, Jafari H, Taghipour A. The relationship of sociocultural beliefs and infertile couples' attitude toward reproductive donation: A descriptive-correlational study. Int J Reprod BioMed 2019; 17: 315-324. [DOI:10.18502/ijrm.v17i5.4599] [PMID] [PMCID]
43. Behjati Ardakani Z, Navabakhsh M, Tremayne S, Akhondi MM, Ranjbar F, Mohseni Tabrizi A. The impact of third party reproduction on family and kinship. J Reprod Infertil 2021; 22: 3-15. [DOI:10.18502/jri.v22i1.4990] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb