Search

Reciprocal IVF is a route to parenthood that, for the first time, allows cis two-mother families (and other couples in which both partners have a uterus and egg stores) to 'share' biological parenthood. This family form offers a valuable opportunity for researchers to examine experiences of gestational and genetic motherhood within the same family, and this article is the first to take a sociological approach to exploring kinship within this emerging family form. Drawing upon interview data with 14 two-mother families (28 mothers) who have conceived via reciprocal IVF, we show that mothers hold complex, creative and sometimes contradictory understandings of the 'multiple motherhoods' within their family (i.e. genetic, epigenetic and gestational motherhood). Overall, mothers took an active and strategic approach to constructing kinship within their family, and these findings have theoretical, empirical and clinical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: What motivates same‐gender female couples to choose reciprocal in vitro fertilization (IVF)? Do their experiences of becoming and being a mother via reciprocal IVF match their pre‐parenthood expectations? Background: Reciprocal IVF is a treatment route available to cis, same‐gender female couples, and other couples in which both partners have a uterus and egg stores. One partner's egg is retrieved, fertilized in vitro with donor sperm, then carried by the other partner. Existing debate has considered the ethical implications of this treatment route. To date, no empirical research has explored the experiences of families who have used reciprocal IVF. Method: Semistructured interviews were conducted with genetic and gestational mothers in 14 families headed by cis, same gender female couples who had conceived by reciprocal IVF in the United Kingdom (N = 28 mothers). Data were analyzed according to the principles of reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four themes were constructed: (a) becoming mums together; (b) legitimacy: "who's the real mum"; (c) choices and constraints; and (d) biological connections strengthen family connections. Conclusion: Families had multiple and nuanced motivations for choosing reciprocal IVF, such as the desire to share the journey of motherhood with their partner, to be perceived as legitimate parents, to overcome practical barriers, and to build strong family relationships. Mothers' pre‐parenthood expectations often mismatched the reality of becoming and being a mother via reciprocal IVF. Most parents found that the significance of reciprocal IVF diminished as their children grew up. Implications: Findings demonstrate that reciprocal IVF offers a fulfilling route to parenthood. Parents should have access to routes to parenthood that meet their reproductive needs and feel right for them as a couple. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study reports the results of a 2-year long IVF programme ('One by One') in which all patients (median age 40 years; range 27–45 years) were offered preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) and had all blastocysts vitrified (freeze-only), followed later by single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (vSET) in managed cycles. Between January 2016 and December 2017, a total of 155 patients started 222 treatment cycles and 99 (45%) cycles resulted in one or more vitrified blastocysts (untested or with normal copy number for all chromosomes) available for transfer. Seventeen patients (11%) aged ≤35 years opted out of PGT-A. Over this period, 85 vSETs in 74 patients resulted in an implantation rate of 80% (68/85) and a singleton clinical pregnancy rate of 66% (56/85). Cumulative live birth rates will not be known for 1–2 years. Nevertheless, these high success rates with vSET confirm larger studies using selected patients and are likely to deliver similar, if not higher, live birth rates per cycle started than rates typically reported in national registries with conventional IVF and transfer of one or more fresh and/or frozen embryos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper identifies issues relating to academic health record systems and outlines a project currently underway to develop an open source educational clinical information system to better support interprofessional health education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]