Whyte S, Chan HF, Ferguson N, Godwin M, Hammarberg K, Torgler B. Understanding the reasons why men and women do not donate gametes. Reprod Sci (Thousand Oaks, Calif). 2023;30(5):1651–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-022-01112-9.

Article  Google Scholar 

Englert Y, Govaerts I. Oocyte donation: particular technical and ethical aspects. Human Reprod (Oxford, England). 1998;13(Suppl 2):90–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.suppl_2.90.

Article  Google Scholar 

Melnick AP, Rosenwaks Z. Oocyte donation: insights gleaned and future challenges. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(6):988–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.09.021.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Salama M, et al. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(7):1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1181-x.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Borgstrøm MB, et al. Exploring motivations, attitudes and experiences of oocyte donors: a qualitative study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98:1055–62.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hudson N, Culley L, Herbrand C, Pavone V, Pennings G, Provoost V, et al. Reframing egg donation in Europe: new regulatory challenges for a shifting landscape. Health Policy Technol. 2020;9(3):308–13.

Article  Google Scholar 

European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE); Wyns C, De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Motrenko T, Smeenk J, Bergh C, Tandler-Schneider A, Rugescu IA, Vidakovic S, Goossens V. ART in Europe, 2017: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021(3):hoab026. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoab026.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pennings G, de Mouzon J, Shenfield F, Ferraretti AP, Mardesic T, Ruiz A, Goossens V. Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):1076–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu048.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Konečná H, Elišková Z, Honzová I. New recommendations for informing patients and gamete donors in assisted reproduction. Ceska Gynekol. 2024;89(1):66–71. https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg202466. (English).

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

ESHRE Working Group on Reproductive Donation; Kirkman-Brown J, Calhaz-Jorge C, Dancet EAF, Lundin K, Martins M, Tilleman K, Thorn P, Vermeulen N, Frith L. Good practice recommendations for information provision for those involved in reproductive donation†. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(1):hoac001. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac001.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pennings G. The forgotten group of donor-conceived persons. Human Reprod Open. 2022;2022(3):hoac028. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac028.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bracewell-Milnes T, et al. Exploring the knowledge and attitudes of women of reproductive age from the general public towards egg donation and egg sharing: a UK-based study. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(8):2189–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab157.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Coveney C, et al. From scarcity to sisterhood: the framing of egg donation on fertility clinic websites in the UK, Belgium and Spain. Soc Sci Med. 2022;296:114785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114785.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Straehl J, et al. What do infertile women think about oocyte reception, oocyte donation, and child adoption? Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017;39(6):282–7. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1603742.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Polit DF, Beck CT. International differences in nursing research, 2005–2006. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2009;41:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01250.x.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Simoni MK, Mu L, Collins SC. Women’s career priority is associated with attitudes towards family planning and ethical acceptance of reproductive technologies. Human Reprod (Oxford, England). 2017;32(10):2069–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex275.

Article  Google Scholar 

Flatscher-Thöni C, et al. Worlds apart or two sides of the same coin? Attitudes, meanings, and motives of potential oocyte and sperm donors in Austria. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(2):287–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01683-8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Yamamoto N, et al. A survey of public attitudes towards third-party reproduction in Japan in 2014. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0198499. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198499.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Akyuz A, et al. A survey on oocyte donation: Turkish fertile and infertile women’s opinions. Int J Fertil Sterility. 2014;8(3):289–98.

Google Scholar 

Li Piani L, Tshilembi A, De Vos M, Buyse E, Ruttens S, Somigliana E, Tournaye H, Blockeel C. Oocyte donors’ experience and expectations in a non-profit fertility care setting. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03203-9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kool E, et al. What constitutes a reasonable compensation for non-commercial oocyte donors: an analogy with living organ donation and medical research participation. J Med Ethics. 2019;45(11):736–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105474.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Adrian SW, et al. Gamete donation in the time of DNA surprises. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101(12):1348–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14483.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Harper JC, Kennett D, Reisel D. The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Human Reprod (Oxford, England). 2016;31(6):1135–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew065.

Article  Google Scholar 

Cohen IG, Adashi EY, Mohapatra S. The end of anonymous sperm donation in Colorado: a step forward to a new fertility future in the US? JAMA. 2022;328(19):1903–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.19471.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lampic C, et al. National survey of donor-conceived individuals who requested information about their sperm donor-experiences from 17 years of identity releases in Sweden. Human Reprod (Oxford, England). 2022;37(3):510–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab275.

Article  Google Scholar 

Collins SC, Chan E. Sociocultural determinants of US women’s ethical views on various fertility treatments. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(6):669–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.08.015.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Grace B, Shawe J, Stephenson J. A mixed methods study investigating sources of fertility and reproductive health information in the UK. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2023;36:100826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2023.100826.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Maslowski K, et al. Sex and fertility education in England: an analysis of biology curricula and students’ experiences. 101080/0021926620222108103.