Table 2.
Characteristics of websites by their mention of desired egg donor traits (n = 102)
| Ways Donor Traits Are Mentioned | Comparison Between Ways Donor Traits Are Mentioned | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics of Websites | Total SampleA No. (%) | No mention of traits | Explicitly pays more for traits | Mentioned only as “preferred” or “in demand” | No Mention vs. Pays MoreB, OR (95% CI) | P Value | No Mention vs. All OthersC, OR (95% CI) | P Value |
| Total Sample | 102 (100) | 52 (51) | 35 (34) | 15 (15) | ||||
| Organization Information | ||||||||
| Type | ||||||||
| Clinic, No. (%) | 51 (50) | 40 (78.4) | 5 (9.8) | 6 (11.8) | 20.00 (16.36-62.89) | <.001 | 11.82 (4.67-29.94) | <.001 |
| Agency, No. (%) | 51 (50) | 12 (23.5) | 30 (58.8) | 9 (17.6) | ||||
| West coast vs. rest of the country D | ||||||||
| Northeast, South, Midwest, No. (%) | 64 (67) | 43 (67.2) | 10 (15.6) | 11 (17.2) | 2.87 (1.73-4.77) | <.001 | 2.25 (1.41-3.60) | <.001 |
| West coast / Pacific, No. (%) | 32 (33) | 8 (25.0) | 21 (65.6) | 3 (94) | ||||
| Regulatory Endorsement | ||||||||
| SART or ASRM approval | ||||||||
| Approved, No. (%) | 78 (76) | 47 (60.3) | 20 (25.6) | 11 (14.1) | 7.05 (2.26-22.03) | <.001 | 5.76 (1.95-17.04) | <.002 |
| Not Approved, No. (%) | 24 (24) | 5 (20.8) | 15 (62.5) | 4 (16.7) | ||||
| Does site reference ASRM guidelines on compensation? | ||||||||
| Refers to ASRM, No. (%) | 27 (26) | 6 (22.2) | 17 (63.0) | 4 (14.8) | 0.14 (0.05-.41) | <.001 | 0.18 (.07-.50) | <.001 |
| No mention of ASRM, No. (%) | 75 (74) | 46 (61.3) | 18 (24.0) | 11 (14.7) | ||||
| Recruitment Requirements for Donation | ||||||||
| Age Minimum | ||||||||
| 21-22, No. (%) | 56 (59) | 33 (58.9) | 16 (28.6) | 7 (12.5) | 2.34 (0.94-5.84) | <.07 | 2.30 (1.00-5.30) | <.003 |
| 18-20, No. (%) | 39 (41) | 15 (38.5) | 17 (43.6) | 7 (17.9) | ||||
| Education Minimum | ||||||||
| No mention, No. (%) | 80 (78) | 47 (58.8) | 22 (27.5) | 11 (13.8) | 5.56 (1.76-17.52) | <.003 | 4.84 (1.63-14.44) | <.005 |
| Has minimum requirement, No. (%) | 22 (22) | 5 (22.7) | 13 (59.1) | 4 (18.2) | ||||
| Risks | ||||||||
| Short-term risks discussed | ||||||||
| Yes, No. (%) | 45 (44) | 21 (46.7) | 19 (42.2) | 5 (11.1) | 0.57 (0.21-1.36) | NS | 0.734 (.34-1.61) | NS |
| No, No. (%) | 57 (56) | 31 (54.4) | 16 (28.1) | 10 (17.5) | ||||
| Psychological/emotional risks discussed | ||||||||
| Yes, No. (%) | 23 (23) | 14 (60.9) | 6 (26.1) | 3 (13.0) | 1.78 (0.61-5.20) | NS | 1.68 (.65-4.33) | NS |
| No, No. (%) | 79 (77) | 38 (48.1) | 29 (36.7) | 12 (15.2) | ||||
| Risks to future fertility acknowledged | ||||||||
| Yes, No. (%) | 8 (8) | 2 (25.0) | 6 (75.0) | 0 (0) | 0.19 (0.04-1.02) | <.053 | 0.29 (.06-1.53) | NS |
| NoE, No. (%) | 94 (92) | 50 (53.2) | 29 (30.9) | 15 (16.0) | ||||
NOTES
A
For some website characteristics, the data was not discussed on all websites, reducing the sample below 102
B
Binary regression analysis comparing sites that do not mention donor traits and those that explicitly pay more for them
C
Binary regression analysis comparing sites that do not mention donor traits to those that do
D
Excludes six sites that had a National presence in multiple regions around the country
E
“No risks acknowledged” refers to both sites that do not mention future fertility risk as well as sites that discuss it but assert that no risk exists