O-187 An analysis of the outcome of 11,712 men applying to be sperm donors at Cryos International in Denmark and the USA
Authors: Pacey A , Pennings G , Herrmann J , Mocanu E , Pinborg A , Burke C , Skytte A.B 
Published: June 2022

Study question

Is the outcome of donor recruitment influenced by the country in which recruitment took place or the initial ID-release choice of applicants?

Summary answer

More applicants are accepted as donors in Denmark than the USA and those who choose ID release are more frequently accepted than those who don’t.

What is known already

The successful recruitment of sperm donors is essential to provide a range of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) which rely upon donor sperm. However, while much has been written about the medical screening and assessment of sperm donors from a safety perspective, relatively little has been written about the process of recruiting donors and how it works in practice. There are differences in attitudes between donors who choose to allow their identity to be released to any donor conceived people (ID-release) compared to those who don’t (non ID-release). Therefore, we reasoned this may also influence the likelihood of them being recruited.

Study design, size, duration

A total of 11,712 men applied to be sperm donors at Cryos International in Denmark and the USA during 2018 and 2019.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Anonymised records of all donor applicants were examined to assess the number passing through (or lost) at each stage of the recruitment process. Statistical analysis was carried out by Chi Squared test, using Graphpad Prism (San Diego, USA) to examine differences between location (Denmark or USA) and/or donor type (ID-release vs non-ID release).

Main results and the role of chance

Few applicants (3.79%) were accepted as donors and had samples released for use. This was higher in Denmark (6.53%) than the USA (1.03%) (χ2 = 243.2; 1df; z = 15.60; p &lt; 0.0001) and was higher in donors who opted at the outset to be ID-release (4.70%) compared to those who didn’t (3.15%) (χ2 = 18.51; 1df; z = 4.303; p &lt; 0.0001). Most potential donors were lost during recruitment because they: (i) withdrew, failed to respond, did not attend an appointment, or return a questionnaire (54.91%); (ii) reported a disqualifying health issue or failed a screening test (17.41%); (iii) did not meet the eligibility criteria at the outset (11.71%); or (iv) had semen quality which was not adequate (11.20%). In each case, there were statistically significant differences between countries and the donor’s initial ID choice. During recruitment, some donors decided to change ID-type. There were no country differences in the frequency in which this occurred (χ2 = 0.2852; 1df; z = 0.5340; p = 0.5933), but it was more common for donors to change from non-ID release to ID release (27.19%) than the other way around (11.45%) (χ2 = 17.75; 1df; z = 4.213; p &lt; 0.0001) although movements in both directions did occur in both countries.

Limitations, reasons for caution

No information was available about the demographic characteristics of the applicants which may also have influenced their chances of being accepted as a donor (e.g., ethnicity, age etc). Donor recruitment procedures may differ in other locations according to local laws or guidelines.

Wider implications of the findings

A better understanding of when and why potential donors are lost in the recruitment process may help develop leaner and efficient pathways for interested donors and sperm banks. This could ultimately increase the number of donors recruited through enhanced information, support and reassurance during the recruitment process.

Trial registration number

not applicable