Make our wellbeing a priority: donor-conceived adults call for ongoing support and conversation about their donor conception

Best, Samantha; Goedeke, Sonja; Thorpe, Mark

doi:10.1080/14647273.2023.2180439

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Crawshaw and Daniels (2019) have highlighted how parental confidence in using DC can be expected to translate into parental openness with their children, which may help overcome possible stigma and shame associated with family-building that differs from the norm. Best et al (2023) also point to the need for openness to be reflected in ongoing conversations to ensure that DC is normalized. Although most of the studies in this review focus on disclosure by certain points in time, several emphasize that disclosure should be regarded as a process, recognizing that there is a key difference between parental ‘telling’ and the DCP’s ‘knowing’ ( Blyth et al , 2013 ; Applegarth et al , 2016 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parents’ disclosure to their donor-conceived children in the last 10 years and factors affecting disclosure: a narrative review

Duff,

Goedeke

2024

Human Reproduction Update

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Disclosure of donor conception has been advocated in several jurisdictions in recent years, especially in those that practice identity-release donation. However, research on disclosure decisions has not been consolidated systematically in the last 10 years to review if parents are telling and what factors may be impacting their decisions. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE Are parents disclosing to their donor-conceived children, and what factors have influenced their disclosure decisions across different contexts and family forms in the last 10 years? SEARCH METHODS A bibliographic search of English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2012 and 2022 from seven databases was undertaken. References cited in included articles were manually scrutinized to identify additional references and references that cited the included articles were also manually searched. Inclusion criteria were articles focused on parents (including heterosexual, single mothers by choice, same-sex couples, and transsexual) of donor-conceived persons in both jurisdictions with or without identity-release provisions. Studies focused solely on surrogacy, donors, donor-conceived persons, or medical/fertility staff were excluded as were studies where it was not possible to extract donor-recipient parents’ data separately. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Systematic Reviews were used to assess article quality and bias. OUTCOMES Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria representing 34 studies and 4248 parents (including heterosexual, single, same-sex, and transsexual parents although the majority were heterosexual) from countries with anonymous donation and those with identity-release provisions or who had subsequently enacted these provisions (Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Middle East, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA) A general trend towards disclosure was noted across these groups of parents with most disclosing to their donor-conceived children before the age of 10 years. Further, the majority of those who had not yet told, reported planning to disclose, although delayed decisions were also associated with lower disclosure overall. Same-sex and single parents were more likely to disclose than heterosexual parents. There was recognition of disclosure as a process involving ongoing conversations and that decisions were impacted by multiple interacting intrapersonal, interpersonal, and external contextual and social factors. Methodological limitations, such as the different population groups and contexts from which participants were drawn (including that those parents who choose not to disclose may be less likely to participate in research), are acknowledged in integrating findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS This review has reinforced the need for a theoretical model to explain parents’ disclosure decisions and research exploring the role of legislative provisions, culture, and donor/family type in decision-making. Greater ongoing access to psychological support around disclosure may be important to promote parent and family well-being.

show abstract