ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2019
Comparing fertility preservation resources and policies between NCCN member and non-member institutions.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of fertility preservation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Attitudes and practices about fertility preservation discussions among young adults with cancer treated at a comprehensive cancer center: patient and oncologist perspectives.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Oncofertility in adult and pediatric populations: options and barriers.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) created guidelines to facilitate implementation of fertility preservation (FP) discussions and referrals for adolescent and young adult patients. We assessed if availability of workplace FP resources and referral policies differed among learners in the Educating Nurses about Reproductive Health in Cancer Healthcare (ENRICH) training program based on NCCN membership.
methodsLearners completed a baseline application, including demographic information and the availability of FP resources and referral policies. Learners were categorized as either NCCN members or non-members and chi-square tests compared resources between the two groups.
resultsLearners from NCCN institutions reported the highest rates of established FP referral guidelines (p < .01), reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist (REI) on staff (p < .01), partnerships with REI, educational materials for staff (p < .05), and patients (p < .01).
conclusionFP resources and referral policies were highest among learners from NCCN member institutions, but areas for development with fertility issues still exist and learners from non-member institutions may assist their workplaces in improving rates of discussions and referrals based on their ENRICH training. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The variation of available resources and referral policies between groups suggests more FP education and training; focusing on implementation programs is needed to make steps towards impactful institutional level resources and policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.