Skip header and navigation

Refine By

   MORE

7 records – page 1 of 1.

Attitudes about donor information differ greatly between IVF couples using their own gametes and those receiving or donating oocytes or sperm.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature280849
Source
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):703-10
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-2016
Author
Agneta Skoog Svanberg
G. Sydsjö
M. Bladh
C. Lampic
Source
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Jun;33(6):703-10
Date
Jun-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Adolescent
Adult
Attitude
Family Characteristics
Female
Fertilization in Vitro - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Oocyte Donation - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Spermatozoa
Sweden
Tissue Donors - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Abstract
The objective of the study is to examine attitudes towards aspects of donation treatment based on a national Swedish sample of gamete donors and couples undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).
The present study was part of the Swedish study on gamete donation, a prospective longitudinal cohort study including all fertility clinics performing gamete donation in Sweden. The sample comprised 164 oocyte donors, 89 sperm donors, 251 people treated with their own gametes (in vitro fertilisation (IVF)), 213 oocyte recipients and 487 sperm recipients. A study-specific questionnaire was used.
Attitudes vary widely between couples using their own gametes for IVF and those receiving or donating oocyte or sperm. The groups differed in their responses to most questions. Oocyte and sperm donors were more likely to agree with the statements "The donor should be informed if the donation results in a child" and "Offspring should receive some information about the donor during mature adolescence" than recipients of donated gametes and couples treated with their own gametes.
Donor recipients, IVF couples and donors expressed different attitudes towards openness and information when it came to gamete donation, and those differences seemed to depend on their current reproductive situation.
Notes
Cites: Med J Aust. 2003 Feb 3;178(3):127-912558484
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2013 Sep;28(9):2432-923756704
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2004 Oct;19(10):2415-915310730
Cites: Public Underst Sci. 2009 Jan;18(1):61-7719579535
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2009 Aug;24(8):1930-819414865
Cites: Ups J Med Sci. 2013 Aug;118(3):187-9523786323
Cites: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009 May;26(5):231-819472047
Cites: Hum Reprod. 2008 Apr;23(4):904-1118258766
Cites: Psychol Health. 2011 Sep;26(9):1113-2721929476
PubMed ID
27059774 View in PubMed
Less detail

Unlocking Health Canada's cache of trade secrets: mandatory disclosure of clinical trial results.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature131803
Source
CMAJ. 2012 Feb 7;184(2):194-9
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-7-2012
Author
Matthew Herder
Author Affiliation
Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS. Matthew.Herder@Dal.ca
Source
CMAJ. 2012 Feb 7;184(2):194-9
Date
Feb-7-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Canada
Clinical Trials as Topic - legislation & jurisprudence
Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence
Drug Industry - legislation & jurisprudence
Government Agencies - legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
Mandatory Programs - legislation & jurisprudence
Off-Label Use - legislation & jurisprudence
Prescription Drugs - adverse effects
Public Policy - legislation & jurisprudence
Registries
Notes
Cites: CMAJ. 2004 Feb 17;170(4):487-914970096
Cites: Lancet. 2004 Apr 24;363(9418):1341-515110490
Cites: CMAJ. 2004 May 25;170(11):1678-8615159366
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2004 Sep 21;141(6):477-815355883
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 21;351(17):1707-915470193
Cites: CMAJ. 2011 Jul 12;183(10):1125-621502342
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 17;358(3):252-6018199864
Cites: CMAJ. 2008 Feb 12;178(4):428-3118268270
Cites: Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Jun;24(6):1683-918462565
Cites: PLoS Med. 2008 Nov 25;5(11):e217; discussion e21719067477
Cites: BMJ. 2011;342:d257021511787
Cites: BMJ. 2005 Apr 23;330(7497):956-815845980
PubMed ID
21876028 View in PubMed
Less detail

Transparency in drug regulation: mirage or oasis?

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature177289
Source
CMAJ. 2004 Nov 23;171(11):1363-5
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-23-2004
Author
Joel Lexchin
Barbara Mintzes
Author Affiliation
Emergency Department, University Health Network, School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Ont. joel.lexchin@utoronto.ca
Source
CMAJ. 2004 Nov 23;171(11):1363-5
Date
Nov-23-2004
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Antidepressive Agents - therapeutic use
Bias (epidemiology)
Canada
Cardiovascular Diseases - chemically induced
Clinical Trials as Topic - standards
Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors - adverse effects
Drug Approval - organization & administration
Drug Industry - legislation & jurisprudence
Hormone Replacement Therapy - adverse effects
Humans
Publishing - standards
Pyrazoles
Sulfonamides - adverse effects
Notes
Cites: JAMA. 2001 Nov 21;286(19):2398-40011712925
Cites: Lancet. 2000 Feb 12;355(9203):566-910683020
Cites: JAMA. 2000 Sep 13;284(10):1247-5510979111
Cites: JAMA. 2001 Nov 21;286(19):2398; author reply 2399-40011712924
Cites: BMJ. 1997 Jul 19;315(7101):149-539251544
Cites: JAMA. 2002 Jul 17;288(3):321-3312117397
Cites: BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1171-312775615
Cites: BMJ. 2004 Feb 28;328(7438):518-2014988197
Comment In: CMAJ. 2005 Jun 21;172(13):1664; author reply 1664-515967953
PubMed ID
15557590 View in PubMed
Less detail

Attitudes to sharing personal health information in living kidney donation.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature144792
Source
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Apr;5(4):717-22
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-2010
Author
Patricia Hizo-Abes
Ann Young
Peter P Reese
Phil McFarlane
Linda Wright
Meaghan Cuerden
Amit X Garg
Author Affiliation
London Kidney Clinical Research Unit, Room ELL-101, Westminster, London Health Sciences Centre, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, Ontario N6A 4G5, Canada.
Source
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Apr;5(4):717-22
Date
Apr-2010
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Access to Information - legislation & jurisprudence
Adult
Aged
Attitude of Health Personnel
Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health Policy
Health Records, Personal
Humans
Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Kidney Transplantation - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Living Donors - legislation & jurisprudence - psychology
Male
Middle Aged
Ontario
Patient Education as Topic
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Questionnaires
Abstract
In living kidney donation, transplant professionals consider the rights of a living kidney donor and recipient to keep their personal health information confidential and the need to disclose this information to the other for informed consent. In incompatible kidney exchange, personal health information from multiple living donors and recipients may affect decision making and outcomes.
We conducted a survey to understand and compare the preferences of potential donors (n = 43), potential recipients (n = 73), and health professionals (n = 41) toward sharing personal health information (in total 157 individuals).
When considering traditional live-donor transplantation, donors and recipients generally agreed that a recipient's health information should be shared with the donor (86 and 80%, respectively) and that a donor's information should be shared with the recipient (97 and 89%, respectively). When considering incompatible kidney exchange, donors and recipients generally agreed that a recipient's information should be shared with all donors and recipients involved in the transplant (85 and 85%, respectively) and that a donor's information should also be shared with all involved (95 and 90%, respectively). These results were contrary to attitudes expressed by transplant professionals, who frequently disagreed about whether such information should be shared.
Future policies and practice could facilitate greater sharing of personal health information in living kidney donation. This requires a consideration of which information is relevant, how to put it in context, and a plan to obtain consent from all concerned.
Notes
Cites: Am J Transplant. 2003 Jul;3(7):830-412814474
Cites: Am J Transplant. 2009 Jul;9(7):1558-7319459792
Cites: Transplantation. 2004 Aug 27;78(4):491-215446304
Cites: Lancet. 1992 Oct 3;340(8823):807-101357243
Cites: Can J Surg. 2004 Dec;47(6):408-1315646438
Cites: Transplantation. 2005 Mar 27;79(6 Suppl):S53-6615785361
Cites: HIV Med. 2006 Apr;7(3):133-916494626
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2006 Aug 1;145(3):185-9616880460
Cites: J Pers Assess. 2006 Dec;87(3):305-1617134338
Cites: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006 Nov;1(6):1148-5317699340
Cites: Am J Transplant. 2008 Sep;8(9):1878-9018671676
Cites: Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008 Oct;23(10):3316-2418599559
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 12;360(11):1096-10119279341
Cites: J Med Ethics. 2009 Apr;35(4):270-119332587
Cites: Kidney Int. 2009 May;75(10):1088-9819225540
Cites: Am J Transplant. 2004 Oct;4(10):1553-415367208
PubMed ID
20299371 View in PubMed
Less detail

7 records – page 1 of 1.