Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31154532›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

Supportive oncofertility care, psychological health and reproductive concerns: a qualitative study.

Y Wang, Shanna Logan, K Stern, C E Wakefield, R J Cohn, F Agresta, Y Jayasinghe, R Deans, E Segelov, R I McLachlan and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Validation of the Oncofertility Support Scale derived from the Fertility Information Support scale among young adult women with breast cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  8. Barriers to and Facilitators of Shared Decision-Making Implementation in Fertility Preservation for Patients With Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. The experience of fertility concerns in patients with testicular cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Sexual Dysfunction among Gynaecological Cancer Survivors: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study in Malaysia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Psychological State and Decision Perceptions of Male and Female Cancer Patients on Fertility Preservation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Y WangSchool of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Shanna LoganSchool of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. shanna.logan@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2745-4531
K SternMelbourne IVF, Melbourne, Australia.
C E WakefieldSchool of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
R J CohnSchool of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
F AgrestaMelbourne IVF, Melbourne, Australia.
Y JayasingheDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
R DeansSchool of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
E SegelovMonash Health, Melbourne, Australia.
R I McLachlanMonash IVF, Richmond, Australia.
B GerstlKids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
E SullivanFaculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
W E LedgerSchool of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
A AnazodoSchool of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AURoyal Hospital for Women · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUMonash Health · AUMonash IVF · AUSydney Children's Hospital · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

NIHR Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImpaired fertility in cancer patients and survivors of reproductive age (15-45 years) may lead to psychological distress and poor mental health outcomes, and may negatively impact quality of life. Limited research has focused on the fertility experiences of those who have had access to supportive oncofertility care. This study aims to explore the fertility-care experiences and reproductive concerns of reproductive age cancer patients at the time of their cancer diagnosis who have had access to oncofertility care.

methodsThe qualitative data from a larger mixed method study is presented, comprising 30 semi-structured telephone interviews with newly diagnosed cancer patients across Australia and New Zealand, undertaken between April 2016 and April 2018.

resultsInterviews were undertaken with 9 male patients and 21 female patients aged between 15 and 44 years. All patients recalled a discussion about fertility and majority underwent some form of fertility preservation. Thematic analysis identified five main themes: (i) satisfaction with oncofertility care, (ii) a need for individualised treatment and support, (iii) desire for parenthood, (iv) fertility treatment can be challenging, and (v) fertility preservation provides a safety net for the future.

conclusionsParticipants who access supportive oncofertility care report low emotional impact of threatened future infertility at the time of cancer diagnosis. These results suggest that such services may assist in lowering the emotional burden of potential infertility in survivors. Long-term research is needed to assess the longitudinal benefits for different models of care.

Indexed as

Psychosocial Support SystemsAdolescentAdultAustraliaFemaleFertilityFertility PreservationHumansInfertilityMaleMental HealthNeoplasmsNew ZealandQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeSurvivorsEmotional well-beingFertilityFertility preservationOncofertilityOncologyPsychological health

Identifiers

PMID31154532
OpenAlexW2947542833

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.