| Title |
Attitudes of sperm, egg and embryo donors and recipients towards genetic information and screening of donors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reproductive Health, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12978-018-0468-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J. Amor, Annabelle Kerr, Nandini Somanathan, Alison McEwen, Marianne Tome, Jan Hodgson, Sharon Lewis |
| Abstract |
Gamete and embryo donors undergo genetic screening procedures in order to maximise the health of donor-conceived offspring. In the era of genomic medicine, expanded genetic screening may be offered to donors for the purpose of avoiding transmission of harmful genetic mutations. The objective of this study was to explore the attitudes of donors and recipients toward the expanded genetic screening of donors. Qualitative interview study with thematic analysis, undertaken in a tertiary fertility centre. Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with eleven recipients and nine donors from three different cohorts (sperm, egg and embryo donors/recipients). Donors and recipients acknowledged the importance of genetic information and were comfortable with the existing level of genetic screening of donors. Recipients recognised some potential benefits of expanded genetic screening of donors; however both recipients and donors were apprehensive about extended genomic technologies, with concerns about how this information would be used and the ethics of genetic selectivity. Participants in donor programs support some level of genetic screening of donors, but are wary of expanding genetic screening beyond current levels. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,492,327
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#1,121
of 1,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,538
of 442,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#50
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.