ReviewFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Factors influencing fertility preservation communication and decision support for cancer patients: a qualitative evidence synthesis of healthcare professionals' perspectives.
Review in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer treatments threaten fertility in reproductive-age patients. Although fertility preservation (FP) is an effective option, its communication and decision support remain inconsistently implemented in clinical practice. Objective: To identify factors influencing FP communication and decision support from the perspective of healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: A qualitative evidence synthesis of qualitative and mixed-methods studies from six databases was conducted. Influencing factors were mapped using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Study quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting standards, and the confidence in the evidence was graded using the Confidence in the Qualitative Evidence (ConQual) scale. Results: Factors influencing FP communication and decision support were identified across three CFIR domains. Outer setting: local fertility attitudes, geographic barriers, and policy shaped access to and engagement in FP communication and decision support. Inner setting: poor structural characteristics, survival-focused culture, limited FP knowledge, weak relational connections, and suboptimal multi-level communication hindered effective implementation. Individual: family support facilitated engagement, whereas patients' capacity and emotional state influenced their participation. Four constructs landed at a moderate confidence level, and six constructs landed at a low confidence level. Conclusions: Effective FP communication and decision support require multi-level, tailored strategies targeting domain-specific barriers and facilitators. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/, identifier CRD42024600847.
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.