ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2019
Conducting reproductive research during a new childhood cancer diagnosis: ethical considerations and impact on participants.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fertility Preservation Discussions And Decisions: Results From a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Among Adolescent Males With Cancer.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeResearch among adults shows benefits and low perceived burden of engaging in behavioral research. However, questions remain regarding the ethics of conducting behavioral research in pediatric populations during sensitive situations, including during a new life-threatening diagnosis or at end-of-life. We examined reactions to participating in a behavioral reproductive research study among male adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer and their parents, as a step towards optimizing fertility preservation utilization in a population where future infertility is common.
methodsPediatric literature regarding the ethics of behavioral research was reviewed. In our pilot, forty-four participants (19 mothers, 11 fathers, 14 male adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer) from 20 families completed demographic questionnaires and a fertility preservation decision tool developed by the study team. Qualitative interviews exploring the impact of study participation were subsequently conducted. Verbatim transcripts were coded for thematic content using the constant comparison method.
resultsLiterature review showed positive reactions to research participation among youth/caregivers. In our pilot study, 89% (n = 17) of mothers, 64% (n = 7) of fathers, and 71% (n = 10) of adolescents reported at least one benefit of participating. Eleven percent (n = 2) of mothers, 36% (n = 4) of fathers, and 29% (n = 4) of adolescents said they were not affected; none of the participants reported a negative effect.
conclusionConsistent with prior literature, our study suggests behavioral reproductive research prior to cancer treatment can offer direct benefits to participants and society, without increasing burden. These findings will inform future interventions to improve long-term psychosocial and reproductive outcomes for youth with cancer.
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.