ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020
Assessment of environmental knowledge and needs among assisted reproductive technology professionals.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. 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.
- Assessment of environmental knowledge and needs among infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART): insights from a pilot survey.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Gender, self-care and toxic exposures: a narrative review of personal care product use and health equity implications.BMJ public health · 2025Review
- Clinical narrative competence and humanistic care ability of nurses in assisted reproductive technology: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeExposure to environmental contaminants is to be taken into account in preventive healthcare in general and particularly in the field of reproduction according to the increasing amount of evidence data being published. The aim of this study is to evaluate the practices and interest in and basic knowledge of environmental health, by the professionals of the ART process: doctor, embryologist, and nurses.
methodsSurvey among 12 Belgian assisted reproductive technology (ART) centers.
resultsThe response rate was 67%: 43.5% of the ART professionals do bring up the topic of environmental contaminants with their patients, without significant differences among types of professionals. Ninety percent of respondents believe that it would be useful, and 63% mention their lack of knowledge and the absence of solutions (20.5%) to explain their inaction. Lack of knowledge is much greater for nurses respectively (85%) compared with doctors (52%) and biologists (54%). The most popular means toward improving their knowledge is scientific seminars (69%). The questionnaire to evaluate the health professional knowledge gives 56% of adequate replies. The topic concerning eating habits obtains a very bad score of knowledge. When looking at exposure to occupational risks, 75% of the answers were correct.
conclusionsThe place of ART before conception makes it an ideal entry point for the prevention of environmental hazards. This study corroborates the previous observations which underline the importance to reinforce the concepts of environmental health in the initial and continuous training of health professionals.
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.