Donors’ Satisfaction with Egg Donation and Willingness to Re-donation: A Systematic Review Article

Document Type : Review Article


1 M.Sc. Student of Midwifery, Student Research Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Midwifery, Social Development & Health Promotion Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran.


Introduction: Demand for egg donors is growing worldwide. Due to the acute shortage of egg donors worldwide and since donors' satisfaction affect their willingness to re-donate, therefore, this study was conducted with aim of a systematic review of studies on donors' satisfaction with egg donation and willingness to re-donate in Iran and the world.
Methods: Comprehensive searches were performed in databases of Magiran, SID, Irandoc, Scopus, Pubmed, ISI as well as Google Scholar search engine from 1990 to 2020. To search the studies, Persian and English keywords including: egg, ovum, oocyte, satisfaction, donor, Re-donation and combining these words with AND and OR operators were used. According to STROBE criteria, the studies which scored above 15 were included in the study. Data analysis was performed qualitatively.
Results: Out of 63 articles found in the databases, 7 articles which met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. All of these articles were of good or average quality.The results of the studies showed that egg donors evaluated the donation experience positively, so that the level of satisfaction was high and many of them were willing to donate eggs again.
Conclusion: Despite the high satisfaction of donors, determining and implementing the methods to improve donor satisfaction leads to better selection and retention of donors.


  1. Hadizadeh-Talasaz F, Simbar M, Latifnejad-Roudsari R. Exploring the Infertile Couples’ Decisions Undergoing Donor Conception About Disclosure to Future Child. Int J Fertil Steril 2020; 14(3).
  2. Sun H, Gong TT, Jiang YT, Zhang S, Zhao YH, Wu QJ. Global, regional, and national prevalence and disability-adjusted life-years for infertility in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: results from a global burden of disease study, 2017. Aging (Albany NY) 2019; 11(23):10952.
  3. Taghipour A, Karimi FZ, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Mazlom SR. Coping Strategies of Women Following the Diagnosis of Infertility in Their Spouses: A Qualitative Study. Evidence Based Care 2020; 10(1):15-24.
  4. Hasanpoor-Azghady SB, Simbar M, Abou Ali Vedadhir SA, Amiri-Farahani L. The social construction of infertility among Iranian infertile women: a qualitative study. Journal of reproduction & infertility 2019; 20(3):178-90.
  5. Karimi FZ, Taghipour A, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Kimiaee SA, Mazloum SR, Amirian M. Psycho-social effects of male infertility in Iranian women: a qualitative study. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2016; 19(10):20-32.
  6. Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Bora S, Ismail AM, Al-Memar M, Hamed AH, et al. Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update 2016; 22(4):450-65.
  7. Hadizadeh-Talasaz F, Latifnejad Roudsari R, Simbar M. Decision for disclosure: The experiences of Iranian infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive donation procedures. Human Fertility 2015; 18(4):265-75.
  8. Yee S, Hitkari JA, Greenblatt EM. A follow-up study of women who donated oocytes to known recipient couples for altruistic reasons. Human Reproduction 2007; 22(7):2040-50.
  9. Klock SC, Braverman AM, Rausch DT. Predicting anonymous egg donor satisfaction: a preliminary study. Journal of women's health 1998; 7(2):229-37.
  10. Klock SC, Stout JE, Davidson M. Psychological characteristics and factors related to willingness to donate again among anonymous oocyte donors. Fertility and Sterility 2003; 79(6):1312-6.
  11. Söderström-Anttila V, Miettinen A, Rotkirch A, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Poranen AK, Sälevaara M, et al. Short-and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction levels for altruistic anonymous, identity-release and known oocyte donors. Human Reproduction 2016; 31(3):597-606.
  12. Requena A, Cruz M, Collado D, Izquierdo A, Ballesteros A, Muñoz M, et al. Evaluation of the degree of satisfaction in oocyte donors using sustained-release FSH corifollitropin α. Reproductive biomedicine online 2013; 26(3):253-9.
  13. Gonzalo J, Perul M, Corral M, Caballero M, Conti C, García D, et al. A follow-up study of the long-term satisfaction, reproductive experiences, and self-reported health status of oocyte donors in Spain. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 2019; 24(3):227-32.
  14. Latifnejad Roudsari R, Hadizadeh Talasaz F, Simbar M, Khadem Ghaebi N. Challenges of donor selection: the experiences of Iranian infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive donation procedures. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2014; 16(88):1-13.
  15. Hadizadeh-Talasaz F, Simbar M, Esmaily H, Roudsari RL. Development and validation of a decision-making donor conception questionnaire in Iranian infertile couples. International Journal of Fertility & Sterility 2019; 13(3):215-24.
  16. Schover LR, Collins RL, Quigley MM, Blankstein J, Kanoti G. Psychological follow-up of women evaluated as oocyte donors. Human Reproduction 1991; 6(10):1487-91.
  17. Rosenberg H, Epstein Y. Follow-up study of anonymous ovum donors. Human Reproduction 1995; 10(10):2741-47.
  18. Fielding D, Handley S, Duqueno L, Weaver S, Lui S. Motivation, attitudes and experience of donation: a follow‐up of women donating eggs in assisted conception treatment. Journal of community & applied social psychology 1998; 8(4):273-87.
  19. Kalfoglou AL, Gittelsohn J. A qualitative follow-up study of women's experiences with oocyte donation. Human Reproduction 2000; 15(4):798-805.
  20. Skoog Svanberg A, Lampic C, Gejerwall AL, Gudmundsson J, Karlström PO, Solensten NG, et al. Gamete donors' satisfaction; gender differences and similarities among oocyte and sperm donors in a national sample. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 2013; 92(9):1049-56.
  21. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews 2015; 4(1):1.
  22. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. International journal of surgery 2014; 12(12):1495-9.
  23. Heydari A, Hosseini M. Study of the Status of STROBE's criteria in the reports of studies related to the prognosis of patients admitted to intensive care unit. Journal of iranian society anaesthesiology and intensive care 2017; 39(4):39-50.
  24. Heydari A, Assarroudi A. Quality of Reporting of Nursing and Midwifery Cohort Studies According to the STROBE Statement. Journal of hayat 2014; 20(3):60-73.
  25. Mardani F, Hadizadeh-Talasaz F, Bahri N. Effect of Medicinal Plants on Episiotomy Wound Healing In Iran: A Systematic Review Study. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2020; 23(5):79-94.
  26. Williams RA, Machin LL. Rethinking gamete donor care: A satisfaction survey of egg and sperm donors in the UK. PloS one 2018; 13(7):e0199971.
  27. Jordan C, Belar C, Williams RS. Anonymous oocyte donation: a follow-up analysis of donors' experiences. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004; 25(2):145-51.
  28. Borgstrøm MB, Nygaard SS, Danielsen AK, Kesmodel US. Exploring motivations, attitudes and experiences of oocyte donors: A qualitative study. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 2019; 98(8):1055-62.
  29. Byrd LM, Sidebotham M, Lieberman B. Egg donation—the donor's view: an aid to future recruitment. Human Fertility 2002; 5(4):175-82.
  30. Cordier C, Ducrocq B, Fry J, Catteau-Jonard S. Views of French oocyte donors at least 3 years after donation. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2020; 40(6):819-826.
  31. France CR, France JL, Wissel ME, Ditto B, Dickert T, Himawan LK. Donor anxiety, needle pain, and syncopal reactions combine to determine retention: a path analysis of two‐year donor return data. Transfusion 2013; 53(9):1992-2000.