Practical analysis of the impact of social marketing strategies on attitudes of potential reproductive cell donors in the Republic of Serbia
Abstract
Background/Aim. There is a constant increase in the need to use third-party reproductive cells among couples who are unable to conceive with their own reproductive cells or in order to prevent the passing of an existing hereditary genetic disorder to the child. The aim of the study was to present a theoretical overview and perform a practical analysis of the use of social marketing strategies using the first technique of analyzing the attitudes of potential donors of reproductive cells in the Republic of Serbia (RS) in the interest of adapting to the target group. Methods. Empirical research in this study, in which both women and men from the RS participated, was based on a questionnaire about people’s willingness to be potential reproductive cell donors and about having information on the donation of reproductive cells. The data in this paper were obtained during 2021, and the questionnaire was focused on a particular population group. The questionnaire was sent to people aged 20 to 34 years who could become potential donors of reproductive cells. In the research, 201 women and men from the RS participated. The first part of the questionnaire was tested for internal consistency, which was tested by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient calculation (α). Values of α lower than 0.5 indicate that the questionnaire possesses unacceptable consistency. Results. A total of 57% of participants were informed about reproductive cell donation through the Internet, 29% by friends and family, and 11% of them were informed by doctors. Only 32% of participants were fully informed, and 25.1% were partially informed about the donation of reproductive material in the RS. Forty-three percent of participants were not informed about the donation of reproductive material. Most of the participants (54%) said they would maybe donate their reproductive material if they had more information, 20% would donate in any case, and 26% would refuse to donate reproductive material. Conclusion. The target group of potential donors of reproductive cells is present in the RS. In addition to the analysis of attitudes, further planning and implementation measures for the promotion of donation could have an influence on raising awareness about the lack of reproductive material and increase the recruitment of gamete donors.
References
1. Pennings G, Ravel C, Girard JM, Domin-Bernhard M, Provoost V. Attitude towards reciprocity as a motive for oocyte donation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 225: 194–8.
2. Kupka MS, D'Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, Castilla JA, et al. European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM); European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2016; 31(2): 233‒48.
3. Wyns C, Bergh C, Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, Motrenko T, et al. European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM)‡ for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). ART in Europe, 2016: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020(3): hoaa032.
4. Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter CH, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020(1): hoz044.
5. Tober D, Garibaldi C, Blair A, Baltzell K. Alignment between expectations and experiences of egg donors: what does it mean to be informed? Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2020; 12: 1‒13.
6. Kotler Ph, Keller L. Marketing management. 15 ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2016.
7. World Health Organization. Health promotion glossary of terms 2021. 2021. [accessed on 2023 June 6] Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240038349int/publications/i/item/9789240038349
8. Wood M. Marketing Social Marketing. J Soc Market 2012; 2(2): 94‒102.
9. Pennings G. Central role of altruism in the recruitment of gamete donors. Monash Bioeth Rev 2015; 33(1): 78‒88.
10. Chen JY. Reproductive Donation: Practice, Policy, and Bioethics. Yale J Biol Med 2013; 86(3): 434–5.
11. Pennings G, de Mouzon J, Shenfield F, Ferraretti AP, Mardesic T, Ruiz A, et al. Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Hum Reprod 2014; 29(5): 1076‒89.
12. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Third-Party Reproduction: A Guide for Patients. Impacting reproductive care worldwide [serial on the Internet]. 2018 [accessed on 2023 June 6]. Available from: https://www.reproductivefacts.org
/>/globalassets/rf/news-and-publications/bookletsfact-sheets/e
nglish-fact-sheets-and-info-booklets/third-party_reproduction
_booklet_web.pdf
13. Goldfarb JM. Third-Party Reproduction: A comprehensive Guide. Medical complications and implications of oocyte donation. Berlin: Springer; 2013.
14. Law on the treatment of infertility by biomedical assisted fertilization procedures. Belgrade (RS): "Official Gazette RS"; 2016. No. 72/2009. (Serbian) [accessed on 2023 June 6]. Available from: https://www.rfzo.rs/download/zakoni/Zakon_vto.pdf>
15. Law on Biomedically Assisted Fertilization. Belgrade (RS): "Official Gazette RS"; 2017. No. 40/2017 and 113/2017-state law. (Serbian) [accessed on 2023 June 6]. Available from: https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_biomedicinski_potpomognutoj_oplodnji.html>
16. Langford R, Panter-Brick C. A health equity critique of social marketing: where interventions have impact but insufficient reach. Soc Sci Med 2013; 83: 133‒41.
17. Akbar MB, French J, Lawson A. Critical review on social marketing planning approaches. Soc Business 2019; 9(4): 361‒93.
18. Murray C, Golombok S. Oocyte and semen donation; a survey of UK licensed centres. Hum Reprod 2000; 15(10): 2133–9.
19. Kenney NJ, McGowan ML. Egg donation compensation: ethical and legal challenges. Medicol Bioethics 2014: 4: 15–24.