Motivations and personality characteristics of candidate sperm and oocyte donors according to parenthood status: a national study from the French CECOS network.
NEO Personality Inventory
altruism
gamete donation
motivations
oocyte donation
parenthood status
personality characteristics
social representation
sperm donation
Journal
Human reproduction open
ISSN: 2399-3529
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
15
04
2022
revised:
20
07
2022
entrez:
16
11
2022
pubmed:
17
11
2022
medline:
17
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In a non-commercial national gamete donation programme, do the motivations and personality characteristics of candidate sperm and oocyte donors differ according to their parenthood status? Moderate differences exist between non-parent and parent candidate donors in motivations for gamete donation and representations as well as in personality characteristics. Several studies have analysed the motivations and experiences of oocyte or sperm donors, but mainly in countries where gamete donation is a commercial transaction, and very few studies have reported results of personality traits using personality inventory tests. No study has specifically investigated the motivations and personality characteristics of candidate gamete donors according to parenthood status. A prospective study was carried out including 1021 candidate donors from 21 centres (in university hospitals) of the national sperm and egg banking network in France between November 2016 and December 2018. In total, 1021 candidate gamete donors were included in the study. During their first visit, male (n = 488) and female candidate donors (n = 533) completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic characteristics, their motivations for donation and their representations of donation, infertility and family. Secondly, a NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) exploring the Big Five personality traits was completed online. Results were compared between parent and non-parent candidate donors. Altruistic values were the principal motive for donation irrespective of parenthood status. Reassurance about their fertility or preservation of sperm for future use was more often reported in non-parent than in parent candidate donors. With regard to representation of gamete donation or of the family, independently of their parenthood status, candidate donors more frequently selected social rather than biological representations. Mean personality characteristics were in the normal range. Non-parent candidate donors had higher scores on openness and depression than parents, while parent candidate donors appeared more social than non-parents. The personality characteristics inventory was not completed by all candidate donors included in the study. However, family status did not differ between the two groups (NEO-PI-R completed (n = 525) or not), while the group who completed the NEO-PI-R had a higher educational level. This national study was performed in a country where gamete donation is subject to strict legislation. In a global context where reproductive medicine is commercialized and gamete donor resources are limited, this study found that altruism and social representations of gamete donation and family are the main motivations for gamete donation in a country which prohibits financial incentive. These findings are relevant for health policy and for gamete donation information campaigns. Grant from the Agence de la Biomédecine, France. The authors have nothing to disclose related to this study. N/A.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36382009
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoac042
pii: hoac042
pmc: PMC9641712
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
hoac042Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Références
Womens Health Issues. 2000 Sep-Oct;10(5):226-39
pubmed: 10980440
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Mar;88(3):547-61
pubmed: 15740445
BJOG. 2012 Jan;119(1):33-9
pubmed: 22004406
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Feb 06;2020(1):hoz044
pubmed: 32042927
Fertil Steril. 1993 Jan;59(1):65-71
pubmed: 8419224
Vojnosanit Pregl. 2012 Jan;69(1):49-57
pubmed: 22397297
Hum Reprod. 2007 Sep;22(9):2455-62
pubmed: 17636281
Hum Reprod. 1991 Nov;6(10):1487-91
pubmed: 1770150
BJOG. 2011 Aug;118(9):1067-72
pubmed: 21481152
Hum Reprod. 2007 Jun;22(6):1506-12
pubmed: 17376819
Hum Reprod. 1991 Jul;6(6):811-6
pubmed: 1757519
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2004 Jun;25(2):145-51
pubmed: 15715037
Hum Reprod. 1996 Apr;11(4):746-51
pubmed: 8671321
Hum Reprod. 2012 Apr;27(4):1184-90
pubmed: 22271929
Sex Res Social Policy. 2022;19(1):147-158
pubmed: 33527001
Hum Reprod. 2000 Jan;15(1):203-9
pubmed: 10611213
Hum Reprod. 1992 Apr;7(4):575-9
pubmed: 1522206
Fertil Steril. 2017 Sep;108(3):539-547
pubmed: 28865553
Fertil Steril. 2021 Jun;115(6):1395-1410
pubmed: 33838871
Hum Reprod Update. 2013 Jan-Feb;19(1):37-51
pubmed: 23146866
Fertil Steril. 1999 Dec;72(6):1066-72
pubmed: 10593383
Fertil Steril. 2010 Oct;94(5):1684-8
pubmed: 19833330
Fertil Steril. 1985 Jan;43(1):95-101
pubmed: 3965318
Hum Reprod Update. 2016 Jun;22(4):450-65
pubmed: 27016289
Fertil Steril. 2002 Jul;78(1):40-6
pubmed: 12095488
Fertil Steril. 2002 Mar;77(3):505-10
pubmed: 11872203
Hum Reprod. 2011 Mar;26(3):638-45
pubmed: 21177310
Hum Reprod Update. 2009 Sep-Oct;15(5):499-515
pubmed: 19443709