Low E-visibility of embryologists on fertility clinic websites: a web-based cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the visibility of embryologists on fertility clinic websites among Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) member clinics. METHODS: During a 1-month interval (March 2022), all Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) member fertility clinic websites were evaluated. The professional representation of the primary care team was examined including specialties, the presence of headshots, and biographies. RESULTS: A total of 446 fertility clinic websites were scanned in the search. The embryology team has the least common professional identification by their names (53.58%) compared to gynecology clinicians (96.21%, p < 0.001) and nurses (55.58%, p < 0.001). This trend also applies to other types of professional identifiers, such as headshots and biographies. Professional headshots of embryologists (50.34%) were less prominent than those of gynecology clinicians (93.51%, p < 0.001). A similar trend was observed in the biographies of the embryology team (47.20%) compared to gynecology clinicians (95.08%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study revealed that embryologists have low professional visibility on fertility clinic websites. Fertility clinics may prioritize enhancing the online visibility of their embryology laboratory team. This approach could potentially enhance the recognition of their team, foster transparency, and provide accessible information about the skills and expertise of healthcare professionals involved in the treatment process.

Oocyte donors' awareness on donation procedure and risks: A call for developing guidelines for health tourism in oocyte donation programmes

Objective: In the recent years, oocyte donation programmes have widely spread worldwide becoming the drive of health tourism. In some countries, donation programmes are tightly regulated, whereas in others, the guidelines or regulations are not well defined. To evaluate donors' awareness of the donation programmes and the ethical consequences in enrolling these programmes. Material and Methods: A detailed questionnaire-based survey was conducted to evaluate the donors' main drive to get involved in the donation programme and the donor's knowledge and awareness of risk factors. Results: The majority of the donors (70%) were undergoing donation programmes for financial gains through compensation. The donors were especially not aware of the long-term medical risks and the possibility of identity exposure through genetic screening. Conclusion: The main duty of health professionals is to counsel donors about the basic procedures and any possible problems they may face during the donation programmes. Reimbursement of oocyte donors is a slippery slope in oocyte donation programmes. High compensation may make women think that donation is a profession without considering possible risks. Furthermore, with the wider use of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and genetic anonymity may be at risk, thus the donors have to be counselled properly. Therefore, in this era of health tourism, it is crucial to set up well-defined counselling bodies in all oocyte donation centres and enable donors to make an informed choice in becoming oocyte donors.