3.9 Article

Attitudes and motives of potential sperm donors in Serbia

期刊

VOJNOSANITETSKI PREGLED
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 49-57

出版社

MILITARY MEDICAL ACAD-INI
DOI: 10.2298/VSP1201049H

关键词

tissue donors; semen; attitude; motivation; personality tests; serbia

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Science
  2. Republic of Serbia [OI179002, OI174001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aim. For curing infertility, sperm donors and their donations are important source of benefits for the society. Attitudes of sperm donors towards different recipient categories and relation with offspring become more important. The aim of our study was to explore sperm donation related attitudes and motives among potential sperm donors in Serbia. Methods. The study included 303 participants from Serbia, age from 20 to 40. Measures of personality traits were obtained by using the Big Five Inventory. For measuring attitudes and motivation regarding sperm donation the Attitudes and Motivation of Sperm Donors questionnaire was applied. Results. A total of 244 participants stated that they would be willing to be sperm donors. The results showed no statistically significant differences in personality traits between people who claimed that they would be willing to become sperm donors, and those claiming otherwise, but a number of differences in personality traits were found when various attitudes regarding sperm donation process, possible users of donated sperm and relations between the donor and his biological offspring were considered. Conclusion. There are no statistically significant differences in personality traits between people who claimed that they would and those that would not be willing to become sperm donors. It is possible that some other factors (e.g. cultural values) influence the decision to become sperm donor, but personality traits play an important role in making decisions regarding sperm donation process, possible receivers of donation and relations between the donor and his biological offspring.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据