Factors associated with searching for people related through donor conception among donor-conceived people, parents, and donors: a systematic review

Published:February 25, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xfnr.2021.01.003

      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.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Subscribe to F&S Reviews
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Allan S.
        Donor conception and the search for information: from secrecy and anonymity to openness.
        Routledge, London2016
        • Ravitsky V.
        Conceived and deceived: the medical interests of donor-conceived individuals.
        Hastings Cent Rep. 2012; 42: 17-22
        • Blyth E.
        • Crawshaw M.
        • Frith L.
        • Jones C.
        Donor-conceived people’s views and experiences of their genetic origins: a critical analysis of the research evidence.
        J Law Med. 2012; 19: 769-788
        • Canzi E.
        • Accordini M.
        • Facchin F.
        “Is blood thicker than water?” Donor conceived offspring subjective experiences of the donor: a systematic narrative review.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2019; 38: 797-807
        • Freeman T.
        • Bourne K.
        • Jadva V.
        • Smith V.
        Making connections: contact between sperm donor relations. Families, origins and identities.
        in: Freeman T. Graham S. Ebtehaj F. Richards M. Relatedness in assisted reproduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge2014: 270-295
        • Thorn P.
        Recipient counseling for donor insemination.
        in: Covington S.N. Burns L.H. Infertility counseling: a comprehensive handbook for clinicians. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge2006: 305-318
        • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
        Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation.
        Fertil Steril. 2004; 81: 527-531
        • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
        Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion.
        Fertil Steril. 2018; 109: 601-605
        • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
        Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.
        HFEA, London2008
        • Blyth E.
        • Frith L.
        Access to genetic and biographical history in donor conception: an analysis of recent trends and future possibilities.
        in: Horsey K. Revisiting the regulation of human fertilisation and embryology. Routledge, London2015: 136-152
        • Brügge C.
        • Thorn P.
        How Germany's new Sperm Donor Registry Act is internationally progressive.
        (Available at:)
        https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_96069
        Date accessed: October 24, 2020
      1. Lei n.o 48. Primeira alteração ao Regime de Execução do Acolhimento Familiar, aprovado pelo Decreto [First amendment to the Family Reception Execution Regime, approved by Decree ] -Lei n.o 11/2008, de 17 de janeiro.
        (Available at:)
        • Scheib J.E.
        • Cushing R.A.
        Open-identity donor insemination in the United States: is it on the rise?.
        Fertil Steril. 2007; 88: 231-232
        • Scheib J.E.
        • Ruby A.
        Contact among families who share the same sperm donor.
        Fertil Steril. 2008; 90: 33-43
        • Scheib J.E.
        • Ruby A.
        • Benward J.
        Who requests their sperm donor's identity? The first ten years of information releases to adults with open-identity donors.
        Fertil Steril. 2017; 107: 483-493
        • Crawshaw M.
        • Frith L.
        • van den Akker O.
        • Blyth E.
        Voluntary DNA-based information exchange and contact services following donor conception: an analysis of service users’ needs.
        New Genet Soc. 2016; 35: 372-392
        • Johnson L.
        • Bourne K.
        • Hammarberg K.
        Donor conception legislation in Victoria, Australia: the" Time to Tell" campaign, donor-linking and implications for clinical practice.
        J Law Med. 2012; 19: 803-819
        • Harper J.
        • Kennett D.
        • Reisel D.
        The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business.
        Human Reprod. 2016; 31: 1135-1140
        • Crawshaw M.
        Direct-to-consumer DNA testing: the fallout for individuals and their families unexpectedly learning of their donor conception origins.
        Human Fertil. 2018; 21: 225-228
        • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)
        Interests, obligations, and rights in gamete and embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion.
        Fertil Steril. 2019; 111: 664-670
        • Liberati A.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Mulrow C.
        • Gotzsche P.C.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: e1-e34
        • Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018)
        CASP Qualitative Checklist.
        (Available at:)
        • Moola S.
        • Munn Z.
        • Tufanaru C.
        • Aromataris E.
        • Sears K.
        • Sfetcu R.
        • et al.
        Systematic reviews of etiology and risk.
        in: Aromataris E. Munn Z. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI, 2020 (Available at: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global)
        • Hertz R.
        • Nelson M.K.
        • Kramer W.
        Donor sibling networks as a vehicle for expanding kinship: a replication and extension.
        J Fam Issues. 2017; 38: 248-284
        • Blyth E.
        • Crawshaw M.
        • Frith L.
        • van den Akker O.
        Gamete donors' reasons for, and expectations and experiences of, registration with a voluntary donor linking register.
        Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017; 20: 268-278
        • Frith L.
        • Blyth E.
        • Crawshaw M.
        • van den Akker O.
        Searching for ‘relations’ using a DNA linking register by adults conceived following sperm donation.
        Biosocieties. 2017; 13: 170-189
        • van den Akker O.B.
        • Crawshaw M.A.
        • Blyth E.D.
        • Frith L.J.
        Expectations and experiences of gamete donors and donor-conceived adults searching for genetic relatives using DNA linking through a voluntary register.
        Hum Reprod. 2015; 30: 111-121
        • Daniels K.R.
        • Kramer W.
        • Perez-y-Perez M.V.
        Semen donors who are open to contact with their offspring: issues and implications for them and their families.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2012; 25: 670-677
        • Kelly F.
        • Dempsey D.
        • Power J.
        • Bourne K.
        • Hammarberg K.
        • Johnson L.
        From stranger to family or something in between: donor linking in an era of retrospective access to anonymous sperm donor records in Victoria, Australia.
        Int J Law Policy Fam. 2019; 33: 277-297
        • Kelly F.
        Autonomous motherhood in the era of donor linking: new challenges and constraints.
        Can J Fam Law. 2019; 32: 387-424
        • Kelly F.J.
        • Dempsey D.J.
        Experiences and motives of Australian single mothers by choice who make early contact with their child's donor relatives.
        Med Law Rev. 2016; 24: 571-590
        • Isaksson S.
        • Sydsjo G.
        • Svanberg A.S.
        • Lampic C.
        Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish study on gamete donation.
        Fertil Steril. 2014; 102: 1160-1166
        • Lampic C.
        • Svanberg A.S.
        • Sydsjo G.
        Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors.
        Hum Reprod. 2014; 29: 1978-1986
        • Lozano E.B.
        • Fraley R.C.
        • Kramer W.
        Attachment in donor-conceived adults: curiosity, search, and contact.
        Pers Relationship. 2019; 26: 331-344
        • Vanfraussen K.
        • Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I.
        • Brewaeys A.
        Why do children want to know more about the donor? The experience of youngsters raised in lesbian families.
        J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2003; 24: 31-38
        • Klock S.C.
        • Braverman A.M.
        • Rausch D.T.
        Predicting anonymous egg donor satisfaction: a preliminary study.
        J Womens Health. 1998; 7: 229-237
        • Hertz R.
        • Mattes J.
        Donor-shared siblings or genetic strangers.
        J Fam Issues. 2011; 32: 1129-1155
        • Hertz R.
        • Nelson M.K.
        • Kramer W.
        Sperm donors describe the experience of contact with their donor-conceived offspring.
        Facts Views Vis in Obgyn. 2015; 7: 91-100
        • Jadva V.
        • Freeman T.
        • Kramer W.
        • Golombok S.
        Sperm and oocyte donors' experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspring.
        Hum Reprod. 2011; 26: 638-645
        • Visser M.
        • Mochtar M.H.
        • de Melker A.A.
        • van der Veen F.
        • Repping S.
        • Gerrits T.
        Psychosocial counselling of identifiable sperm donors.
        Hum Reprod. 2016; 31: 1066-1074
        • Koh A.S.
        • van Beusekom G.
        • Gartrell N.K.
        • Bos H.
        Adult offspring of lesbian parents: how do they relate to their sperm donors?.
        Fertil Steril. 2020; 114: 879-887
        • Scheib J.E.
        • Riordan M.
        • Rubin S.
        Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: reports from 12-17 year olds.
        Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 239-252
        • Zadeh S.
        • Ilioi E.C.
        • Jadva V.
        • Golombok S.
        The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation.
        Hum Reprod. 2018; 33: 1099-1106
        • Beeson D.R.
        • Jennings P.K.
        • Kramer W.
        Offspring searching for their sperm donors: how family type shapes the process.
        Human Reprod. 2011; 26: 2415-2424
        • Blyth E.
        • Kramer W.
        • Schneider J.
        Perspectives, experiences, and choices of parents of children conceived following oocyte donation.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2013; 26: 179-188
        • Hershberger P.E.
        • Driessnack M.
        • Kavanaugh K.
        • Klock S.C.
        Emerging views of kinships created through oocyte donation.
        MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2020; 45: 18-24
        • Millbank J.
        Identity disclosure and information sharing in donor conception regimes: the unfulfilled potential of voluntary registers.
        Int J Law Policy Fam. 2014; 28: 223-256
        • Sawyer N.
        • Blyth E.
        • Kramer W.
        • Frith L.
        A survey of 1700 women who formed their families using donor spermatozoa.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2013; 27: 436-447
        • Scheib J.E.
        • Riordan M.
        • Rubin S.
        Choosing identity-release sperm donors: the parents' perspective 13-18 years later.
        Hum Reprod. 2003; 18: 1115-1127
        • Goldberg A.E.
        • Scheib J.E.
        Female-partnered and single women's contact motivations and experiences with donor-linked families.
        Hum Reprod. 2015; 30: 1375-1385
        • Rodino I.S.
        • Burton P.J.
        • Sanders K.A.
        Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: an Australian perspective.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 22: 303-311
        • Jadva V.
        • Freeman T.
        • Kramer W.
        • Golombok S.
        Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 20: 523-532
        • Persaud S.
        • Freeman T.
        • Jadva V.
        • Slutsky J.
        • Kramer W.
        • Steele M.
        • et al.
        Adolescents conceived through donor insemination in mother-headed families: a qualitative study of motivations and experiences of contacting and meeting same-donor offspring.
        Child Soc. 2017; 31: 13-22
        • Blyth E.
        Discovering the ‘facts of life’ following anonymous donor insemination.
        Int J Law Policy Fam. 2012; 26: 143-161
        • Cushing A.L.
        I just want more information about who I am’: the search experience of sperm-donor offspring, searching for information about their donors and genetic heritage.
        Inform Res. 2010; 15 (15–2)
        • Dempsey D.
        • Kelly F.
        • Horsfall B.
        • Hammarberg K.
        • Bourne K.
        • Johnson L.
        Applications to statutory donor registers in Victoria, Australia: information sought and expectations of contact.
        Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2019; 9: 28-36
        • Hertz R.
        • Nelson M.K.
        • Kramer W.
        Donor conceived offspring conceive of the donor: the relevance of age, awareness, and family form.
        Soc Sci Med. 2013; 86: 52-65
        • Klotz M.
        Wayward relations: novel searches of the donor-conceived for genetic kinship.
        Med Anthropol. 2016; 35: 45-57
        • Mahlstedt P.P.
        • LaBounty K.
        • Kennedy W.T.
        The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States.
        Fertil Steril. 2010; 93: 2236-2246
        • Freeman T.
        • Jadva V.
        • Kramer W.
        • Golombok S.
        Gamete donation: parents' experiences of searching for their child's donor siblings and donor.
        Human Reprod. 2009; 24: 505-516
        • Daniels K.
        The semen providers.
        in: Daniels K. Haimes E. Donor insemination: international social science perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge1998: 76-104
        • Crawshaw M.A.
        • Blyth E.D.
        • Daniels K.D.
        Past semen donors' views about the use of a voluntary contact register.
        Reprod Biomed Online. 2007; 14: 411-417
        • Daniels K.
        • Lalos A.
        • Gottlieb C.
        • Lalos O.
        Semen providers and their three families.
        J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 26: 15-22
        • Kirkman M.
        • Bourne K.
        • Fisher J.
        • Johnson L.
        • Hammarberg K.
        Gamete donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring.
        Hum Reprod. 2014; 29: 731-738
        • Nelson M.K.
        • Hertz R.
        Pride and concern: differences between sperm and egg donors with respect to responsibility for their donor-conceived offspring.
        New Genet Soc. 2017; 36: 137-158
        • Speirs J.M.
        Semen donors' curiosity about donor offspring and the barriers to their knowing.
        Hum Fertil (Camb). 2012; 15: 89-93
        • Miettinen A.
        • Rotkirch A.
        • Suikkari A.M.
        • Soderstrom-Anttila V.
        Attitudes of anonymous and identity-release oocyte donors towards future contact with donor offspring.
        Hum Reprod. 2019; 34: 672-678
        • Bolt S.
        • Postema D.
        • van der Heij A.
        • Maas A.J.
        Anonymous Dutch sperm donors releasing their identity.
        Hum Fertil (Camb). 2019; : 1-7
        • Hertz R.
        Sperm donors in the US and their relationships to offspring.
        Rev Antopol Soc. 2018; 27: 307-342
        • Crawshaw M.
        • Gunter C.
        • Tidy C.
        • Atherton F.
        Working with previously anonymous gamete donors and donor-conceived adults: recent practice experiences of running the DNA-based voluntary information exchange and contact register, UK DonorLink.
        Hum Fertil (Camb). 2013; 16: 26-30
        • Daniels K.
        • Meadows L.
        Sharing information with adults conceived as a result of donor insemination.
        Hum Fertil. 2006; 9: 93-99
        • Kramer W.
        • Cahn N.R.
        Finding our families: a first-of-its-kind book for donor-conceived people and their families.
        Avery Publishing Group, New York2013
        • Van den Broeck U.
        • Vandermeeren M.
        • Vanderschueren D.
        • Enzlin P.
        • Demyttenaere K.
        • D'Hooghe T.
        A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation.
        Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19: 37-51
        • Burke H.
        • Gilman L.
        • Nordqvist P.
        Being an egg or sperm donor: balancing ‘being available’ with ‘knowing your place’?.
        University of Manchester, Morgan Centre for Research into Everyday Lives, 2020
        • Burke H.
        • Gilman L.
        • Nordqvist P.
        Being an egg or sperm donor: connections with recipient parents.
        University of Manchester, Morgan Centre for Research into Everyday Lives, 2020