Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23647741›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

Women's experiences with information provision and deciding about fertility preservation in the Netherlands: 'satisfaction in general, but unmet needs'.

Mirjam M Garvelink, Moniek M ter Kuile, Rinske M Bakker, Willemijn J Geense, Esther Jenninga, Leoni A Louwé, Carina G J M Hilders, Anne M Stiggelbout

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mirjam M GarvelinkDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Moniek M ter KuileDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Rinske M BakkerDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Willemijn J GeenseDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Esther JenningaDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leoni A LouwéDepartment of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Carina G J M HildersDepartment of Gynecology, Reinier de Graaf Groep Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
Anne M StiggelboutDepartment of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLReinier de Graaf Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIt is not well-known how women receiving counselling consultation about fertility preservation (FP) in the Netherlands perceive the information provision about and referral for FP in the oncology setting. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore women's experiences with the (process of) information provision about the gonadotoxic effects of cancer treatment and about FP and the decision-making process and to obtain their recommendation for improvements.

methodsSemi-structured interviews with female patients with cancer who had received a counselling consultation on FP (at 18-40 years of age).

resultsThirty-four interviews were held (response rate 64%). Information provision was considered to be important. Overall, women were satisfied with the timing and the content of the information, but women were less positive about the need to be assertive to get information, and the multiplicity of decisions and actions to be carried out in a very short time frame.

conclusionsInformation provision on gonadotoxic effects of cancer treatment and about FP was overall deemed sufficient, timely and important. Women recommended standardization of the information provision, improvement of communication among clinicians and medical centres, and availability of FP-specific patient information materials to improve future information provision processes.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultAntineoplastic AgentsFemaleFertility PreservationHumansInformation DisseminationInterviews as TopicMedical OncologyNeoplasmsNetherlandsReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultAntineoplastic Agentscancerdecision makingfertility preservationinformation provisiononcologypsychosocial

Identifiers

PMID23647741
PMCPMC5060855
OpenAlexW2080502924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.