Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26890220›Full record

SynthesisPsycho-oncology2017

Healthcare professionals' views on discussing fertility preservation with young cancer patients: a mixed method systematic review of the literature.

Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Karen E Dyer, John Cyrus, Irene Machowa Lubker

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psycho-oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Fertility preservation in reproductive-aged female patients with colorectal cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Fertility-related services in pediatric oncology across the cancer continuum: a clinic overview.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Karen E DyerDepartment of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States.
John CyrusTompkins-McCaw Library, Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries, Richmond, VA, United States.
Irene Machowa LubkerTompkins-McCaw Library, Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries, Richmond, VA, United States.
Virginia Commonwealth University · USHealth Data Research UK · GBLibrary of Virginia · US

Funding

Training Program in Behavioral and Health Services Cancer Control ResearchR25CA093423 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI BROWN, RICHARD FREDERICK · 2002 to 2015
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS R25 CA093423
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn spite of efforts to guarantee patients are adequately informed about their risk of fertility loss and offered treatment for fertility preservation (FP), previous studies have reported that this topic is not routinely discussed with patients, especially with younger patient populations. A mixed method systematic review was undertaken to explore the factors shaping the discussion of FP with children (0-15 years) and adolescents/young adults (16-24 years) with cancer.

methodsSix databases were searched independently using a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary/subject headings relating to cancer and fertility. Inclusion criteria consisted of: (a) being published in a peer-reviewed journal, (b) a focus on healthcare professionals' (HCPs') beliefs, attitudes, or practices regarding fertility issues in cancer patients, (c) primary data collection from HCPs, and (d) a focus on HCPs who provide services to young patients. Of the 6276 articles identified in the search, 16 articles presenting the results of 14 studies were included in the final review.

resultsCommon themes reported across studies indicate that five main factors influence HCPs' discussion of FP with young cancer patients: (a) HCPs' knowledge, (b) HCPs' sense of comfort, (c) patient factors (i.e., sexual maturity, prognosis, partnership status, and whether or not they initiate the conversation), (d) parent factors (i.e., HCPs' perception of the extent of their involvement), and (e) availability of educational materials.

conclusionsFuture work should ensure that HCPs possess knowledge of cancer-related FP and that they receive adequate training on how to consent and discuss information with young patients and their parents.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelProfessional-Patient RelationsAdolescentChildFemaleFertilityFertility PreservationHealth EducationHealth PersonnelHumansNeoplasmsPrognosisYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26890220
PMCPMC5025377
OpenAlexW2275500317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.