We've just published a paper looking at the recruitment of egg donors in a large sperm and egg bank in the USA. To cut a long story short, only 2.5% of women who applied to be an egg donor finally made it and had their eggs frozen for donation. The paper is free to view at: doi.org/10.1186/s129...
An analysis of the outcome of 2,443 women applying to be donors at a commercial egg bank in the USA - Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
Background Donated eggs are essential for a range of Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR) procedures, but relatively little has been written about how donors are recruited. This study examined egg donor recruitment processes at a commercial egg-bank in Florida (USA). It documents what proportion of applicants were ultimately accepted and, if rejected, at what step, whether this was by choice or selection, whether their initial ID-release choice was important, and how this compares to the recruitment of sperm donors. Methods Anonymised records of all egg donor applicants in 2018 and 2019 (n = 2,443) were examined to determine the number passing through (or lost) at each stage of the recruitment process and ultimately how many had successful egg retrieval and cryopreservation. Statistical analysis was carried out to examine differences between the initial ID-release choice made by egg donor applicants (ID-release vs. non-ID release). Results Few applicants (2.5%) were accepted and had eggs frozen for donation. This did not differ between applicants who opted at the outset to be ID-release (2.94%) compared to those who didn’t (2.12%) (X2 = 1.682; Df = 1; Z = 1.297; p = 0.1947). Most were lost during recruitment because they: (i) did not meet the eligibility criteria at the outset (51.17%); (ii) withdrew, failed to respond, did not attend an appointment, or did not return a questionnaire (26.36%); or (iii) reported a disqualifying health issue or failed a screening test (19.69%). There were no significant differences between the initial ID choice of egg donor candidates and the reason for their loss from the process. This differed from what we know about sperm donor recruitment during the same period at the same clinic. Only two women who were accepted to donate failed to do so because of a poor ovarian response. During recruitment, some egg donors decided to change ID-type and it was more common for them to change from non-ID release to ID release (53.57%) than the other way around (9.09%) (X2 = 14.920; Df = 1; Z = 3.863; p < 0.0001). Conclusion This study demonstrates how challenging egg donor recruitment processes are, with only a small fraction of those who initially apply ultimately being accepted and having samples certified as safe for use in treatment. The initial ID-release choice of egg donor applicants in the USA has no bearing on whether they were finally accepted as donors or not and is unrelated to their reason for rejection from the program.
doi.org
