• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
'Friendly allies in raising a child': a survey of men and women seeking elective co-parenting arrangements via an online connection website.“育儿中的友好盟友”:一项针对通过在线交友网站寻求非传统共同育儿安排的男性和女性的调查。
Hum Reprod. 2015 Aug;30(8):1896-906. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev120. Epub 2015 Jun 3.
2
Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website.在线精子捐赠:对一家交友网站上精子捐赠者的人口统计学特征、动机、偏好及经历的调查
Hum Reprod. 2016 Sep;31(9):2082-9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew166. Epub 2016 Jul 13.
3
A comparison of the characteristics, motivations, preferences and expectations of men donating sperm online or through a sperm bank.比较在线或通过精子库捐精的男性的特征、动机、偏好和期望。
Hum Reprod. 2019 Nov 1;34(11):2208-2218. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez173.
4
The importance of genetic parenthood for infertile men and women.遗传父母身份对不孕男女的重要性。
Hum Reprod. 2017 Oct 1;32(10):2076-2087. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex256.
5
Single fathers by choice using surrogacy: why men decide to have a child as a single parent.选择代孕的单身父亲:男性决定成为单身父母生育子女的原因。
Hum Reprod. 2017 Sep 1;32(9):1871-1879. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex245.
6
Wellbeing of gay fathers with children born through surrogacy: a comparison with lesbian-mother families and heterosexual IVF parent families.通过代孕生育子女的男同性恋父亲的幸福感:与女同性恋父母家庭和异性恋 IVF 父母家庭的比较。
Hum Reprod. 2018 Jan 1;33(1):101-108. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex339.
7
Elective co-parenting with someone already known versus someone met online: implications for parent and child psychological functioning.与已认识的人而非网上认识的人进行选择性共同养育:对父母和孩子心理功能的影响。
Reprod Biomed Online. 2025 May;50(5):104747. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104747. Epub 2024 Dec 4.
8
Donor sibling relations among adult offspring conceived via insemination by lesbian parents.通过女同性恋父母的授精孕育的成年后代之间的供体亲缘关系。
Hum Reprod. 2023 Nov 2;38(11):2166-2174. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead175.
9
Gay fathers' motivations for and feelings about surrogacy as a path to parenthood.男同性恋者选择代孕作为成为父母的途径的动机及感受。
Hum Reprod. 2017 Apr 1;32(4):860-867. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex026.
10
Differences in medically assisted reproduction use by sexual identity and partnership: a prospective cohort of cisgender women.基于性身份认同和伴侣关系的医学辅助生殖使用差异:一项顺性别女性的前瞻性队列研究。
Hum Reprod. 2024 Jun 3;39(6):1323-1335. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deae077.

引用本文的文献

1
Grappling with tradition: the experiences of cisgender, heterosexual mothers and fathers in elective co-parenting arrangements.与传统观念作斗争:异性恋双亲在选择共同育儿安排中的经历。
J Fam Stud. 2023 May 18;30(1):82-103. doi: 10.1080/13229400.2023.2209060. eCollection 2024.
2
Coping or Thriving? Reviewing Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Societal Factors Associated With Well-Being in Singlehood From a Within-Group Perspective.应对还是茁壮成长?从群组内视角回顾与单身幸福感相关的个体内、个体间和社会因素。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2023 Sep;18(5):1097-1120. doi: 10.1177/17456916221136119. Epub 2022 Dec 19.
3
Editorial: LGBTQ Parents and Their Children During the Family Life Cycle.社论:家庭生命周期中的 LGBTQ 父母及其子女
Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 18;12:643647. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.643647. eCollection 2021.
4
Un/familiar connections: on the relevance of a sociology of personal life for exploring egg and sperm donation.陌生/熟悉的联系:探索卵子和精子捐赠的个人生活社会学的相关性。
Sociol Health Illn. 2019 Mar;41(3):601-615. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12862. Epub 2019 Feb 22.
5
Using an introduction website to start a family: implications for users and health practitioners.利用一个介绍网站组建家庭:对用户和健康从业者的影响。
Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2017 Apr 7;4:13-17. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2017.02.001. eCollection 2017 Jun.
6
Why search for a sperm donor online? The experiences of women searching for and contacting sperm donors on the internet.为何在网上寻找精子捐献者?女性在互联网上寻找并联系精子捐献者的经历。
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2018 Jun;21(2):112-119. doi: 10.1080/14647273.2017.1315460. Epub 2017 Apr 28.
7
Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website.在线精子捐赠:对一家交友网站上精子捐赠者的人口统计学特征、动机、偏好及经历的调查
Hum Reprod. 2016 Sep;31(9):2082-9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew166. Epub 2016 Jul 13.

本文引用的文献

1
A Multi-Domain Self-Report Measure of Coparenting.一份多领域共同养育自我报告量表。
Parent Sci Pract. 2012 Jan 1;12(1):1-21. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2012.638870. Epub 2012 Jan 20.
2
On triparenting. Is having three committed parents better than having only two?三亲育。有三个尽责的父母比只有两个更好吗?
J Med Ethics. 2011 Dec;37(12):735-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.2011.043745. Epub 2011 Aug 9.
3
The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and emotional well-being of the next generation.家庭构成变化对下一代认知、社交和情感幸福的影响。
Future Child. 2005 Fall;15(2):75-96. doi: 10.1353/foc.2005.0012.
4
Children of divorce in the 1990s: an update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis.20世纪90年代父母离异家庭的孩子:阿马托和基思(1991年)元分析的更新
J Fam Psychol. 2001 Sep;15(3):355-70. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.15.3.355.
5
Family lives and friendships: the perspectives of children in step-, single-parent, and nonstep families.家庭生活与友谊:继亲家庭、单亲家庭及非继亲家庭中孩子的观点
J Fam Psychol. 2001 Jun;15(2):272-87.
6
Parents' and partners' life course and family experiences: links with parent-child relationships in different family settings.父母及伴侣的人生历程与家庭经历:不同家庭环境中与亲子关系的联系
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2000 Nov;41(8):955-68.
7
The adjustment of children with divorced parents: a risk and resiliency perspective.父母离异家庭中孩子的调适:风险与复原力视角
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1999 Jan;40(1):129-40.
8
Children's adjustment and prosocial behaviour in step-, single-parent, and non-stepfamily settings: findings from a community study. ALSPAC Study Team. Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood.儿童在重组家庭、单亲家庭及非重组家庭环境中的适应与亲社会行为:一项社区研究的结果。ALSPAC研究团队。埃文亲子纵向研究。
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998 Nov;39(8):1083-95.
9
Children of lesbian and gay parents.女同性恋和男同性恋父母的子女。
Child Dev. 1992 Oct;63(5):1025-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x.

“育儿中的友好盟友”:一项针对通过在线交友网站寻求非传统共同育儿安排的男性和女性的调查。

'Friendly allies in raising a child': a survey of men and women seeking elective co-parenting arrangements via an online connection website.

作者信息

Jadva V, Freeman T, Tranfield E, Golombok S

机构信息

Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RF, UK

Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RF, UK.

出版信息

Hum Reprod. 2015 Aug;30(8):1896-906. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev120. Epub 2015 Jun 3.

DOI:10.1093/humrep/dev120
PMID:26040481
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4507329/
Abstract

STUDY QUESTION

What are the characteristics, motivations and expectations of men and women who search for a co-parent online?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Male and female prospective co-parents differed in terms of their motivations, choice of co-parent and expectations of co-parenting, while differences according to sexual orientation were less marked.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Very few studies have addressed the experiences of elective co-parents, i.e. men and women who are not in a relationship with each other creating and raising a child together. No study has examined the motivations and experiences of those who seek co-parents online.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: An online survey was completed by 102 participants (61 men, 41 women) who were members of Pride Angel, an online connection website that facilitates contact between people looking for someone with whom to have a child. The survey was live for 7 weeks.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Details of the survey were emailed to all members of Pride Angel. The survey obtained data on participants' demographic characteristics, motivations, choice of co-parent and expectations of co-parenting. Data were analysed to examine differences by gender and by sexual orientation within each gender.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Approximately one-third of men and one half of women seeking co-parenting arrangements were heterosexual. The majority (69, 68%) of participants were single, although significantly more gay and bisexual men (15, 36%) and lesbian and bisexual women (11, 55%) had a partner compared with heterosexual men (4, 20%) and heterosexual women (2, 12%), respectively. Overall, the most important motivation for seeking co-parenting arrangements was in order for both biological parents to be involved in the child's upbringing. Co-parents were looking for someone with a good medical history. Most female co-parents expected the child to live with them, whereas male co-parents either wished the child to reside with the mother or to live equally in both households. A higher proportion of gay and bisexual men than heterosexual men wanted daily contact with the child.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although this study presents data from the largest sample of elective co-parents to date, the main limitations were the low response rate and that only members of one website were approached. The findings may not be representative of all potential elective co-parents.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study provides important insights into the new phenomenon of elective co-parenting. With the increasing use of assisted reproductive technologies and the diversification of family forms, a growing number of people are seeking co-parenting arrangements to have children. While up until now, elective co-parenting has been principally associated with the gay and lesbian community, this study shows that, with the rise of co-parenting websites, increasing numbers of heterosexual men and women are seeking these types of parenting arrangements. This study generates the first findings on the expectations and motivations of those who seek co-parents online and examines whether these differ according to gender and sexual orientation. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of this new form of parenting on all involved, particularly the children.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust (097857/Z/11/Z). Erika Tranfield is the co-founder of the website Pride Angel, the remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

摘要

研究问题

在网上寻找共同育儿伙伴的男性和女性有哪些特征、动机和期望?

总结答案

准共同育儿的男性和女性在动机、共同育儿伙伴的选择以及对共同育儿的期望方面存在差异,而根据性取向的差异则不太明显。

已知信息

很少有研究涉及选择性共同育儿的经历,即彼此没有恋爱关系的男性和女性共同生育和抚养孩子。没有研究调查过那些在网上寻找共同育儿伙伴的人的动机和经历。

研究设计、规模与持续时间:102名参与者(61名男性,41名女性)完成了一项在线调查,他们都是Pride Angel网站的会员,该网站是一个在线交友平台,旨在帮助寻找共同生育孩子对象的人们建立联系。调查持续了7周。

参与者/材料、环境、方法:调查问卷的详细信息通过电子邮件发送给了Pride Angel网站的所有会员。该调查获取了参与者的人口统计学特征、动机、共同育儿伙伴的选择以及对共同育儿的期望等数据。对数据进行分析,以研究性别差异以及各性别内部不同性取向之间存在的差异。

主要结果及偶然因素的作用

寻求共同育儿安排的男性中约三分之一为异性恋,女性中约一半为异性恋。大多数(69人,68%)参与者为单身,不过与异性恋男性(4人,20%)和异性恋女性(2人,12%)相比,男同性恋者和双性恋男性(15人,36%)以及女同性恋者和双性恋女性(11人,55%)中有伴侣的比例明显更高。总体而言,寻求共同育儿安排的最重要动机是让孩子的亲生父母双方都能参与孩子的成长。共同育儿伙伴希望对方有良好的病史。大多数女性共同育儿伙伴希望孩子与自己生活在一起,而男性共同育儿伙伴要么希望孩子与母亲生活在一起,要么希望孩子能在两个家庭中平均居住。男同性恋者和双性恋男性中希望与孩子有日常接触的比例高于异性恋男性。

局限性、需谨慎的原因:尽管本研究提供了迄今为止最大规模的选择性共同育儿样本的数据,但主要局限性在于回复率较低,且仅联系了一个网站的会员。研究结果可能无法代表所有潜在的选择性共同育儿者。

研究结果的更广泛影响

本研究为选择性共同育儿这一新现象提供了重要见解。随着辅助生殖技术的日益普及和家庭形式的多样化,越来越多的人寻求共同育儿安排来生育孩子。虽然到目前为止,选择性共同育儿主要与同性恋群体相关,但本研究表明,随着共同育儿网站的兴起,越来越多的异性恋男性和女性也在寻求这类育儿安排。本研究首次得出了在网上寻找共同育儿伙伴的人的期望和动机,并研究了这些期望和动机是否因性别和性取向而有所不同。未来需要开展研究,以评估这种新的育儿形式对所有相关人员,尤其是孩子的影响。

研究资金/利益冲突:本研究由惠康信托基金(097857/Z/11/Z)资助。埃丽卡·特兰菲尔德是Pride Angel网站的联合创始人,其余作者声明无利益冲突。