Does increasing ovum donor compensation lead to differences in donor characteristics?

Erica K. German, Tanmoy Mukherjee, Deserie Osborne, Alan B. Copperman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effects of a compensation increase for anonymous ovum donors on demographic and social characteristics. Design: Retrospective analysis. Setting: The Mount Sinai Medical Center Ovum Donation Program. Patient(s): All program applicants for 2 years preceding (group I, n = 2,934) and 1 year following an increase in donor compensation (group II, n = 1,114; total N = 4,048). Intervention(s): Compensation was increased from $2,500 to $5,000 per cycle. Main Outcome Measure(s): Demographic and social characteristics of applicants and donors. Result(s): More group II applicants (65.7%) than group I applicants (49.2%) returned an initial biographical questionnaire. Compensation level did not affect the percentage rejected at any stage in the application process or ultimately selected. There were no differences in donors in age, marital status, education, race, religion, or psychological profile. Group II donors had more previous pregnancies (group II mean = 1.2, group I mean = 0.6) and previous abortions (group II mean = 0.8, group I mean = 0.4). Conclusion(s): Increasing compensation may result in a higher percentage of potential donors completing an initial questionnaire but does not alter the demographic and social characteristics of selected donors. Adherence to a rigorous applicant screening ensures that donor characteristics remain independent from compensation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)75-79
Number of pages5
JournalFertility and Sterility
Volume76
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Keywords

  • Assisted reproductive technologies
  • Donor compensation
  • Ovum donation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Does increasing ovum donor compensation lead to differences in donor characteristics?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this