Evidence mapPaperPMID 34096871Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Patients' and Providers' Needs and Preferences When Considering Fertility Preservation Before Cancer Treatment: Decision-Making Needs Assessment.

Aubri Hoffman, Laura Crocker, Aakrati Mathur, Deborah Holman, June Weston, Sukhkamal Campbell, Ashley Housten, Andrea Bradford, Shilpi Agrawala, Terri L Woodard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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
  4. Fertility Information Perceptions and Needs of People with Cancer, Their Family Members, and Caregivers.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Thoughts about fertility among female adolescents and young adults with cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  17. Assessing gaps in motherhood after cancer: development and psychometric testing of the Survivorship Oncofertility Barriers Scale.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors.

Aubri HoffmanDepartment of Gynecological Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4803-8668
Laura CrockerDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5789-439X
Aakrati MathurDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1527-7446
Deborah HolmanDepartment of Gynecological Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2429-0626
June WestonDepartment of Gynecological Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8794-0107
Sukhkamal CampbellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2756-7942
Ashley HoustenDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7379-0678
Andrea BradfordDepartment of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8390-8844
Shilpi AgrawalaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5135-6005
Terri L WoodardDepartment of Gynecological Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6174-1521

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs cancer treatments continue to improve, it is increasingly important that women of reproductive age have an opportunity to decide whether they want to undergo fertility preservation treatments to try to protect their ability to have a child after cancer. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that providers offer fertility counseling to all young women with cancer; however, as few as 12% of women recall discussing fertility preservation. The long-term goal of this program is to develop an interactive web-based patient decision aid to improve awareness, access, knowledge, and decision making for all young women with cancer. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration recommends a formal decision-making needs assessment to inform and guide the design of understandable, meaningful, and usable patient decision aid interventions.

objectiveThis study aims to assess providers' and survivors' fertility preservation decision-making experiences, unmet needs, and initial design preferences to inform the development of a web-based patient decision aid.

methodsSemistructured interviews and an ad hoc focus group assessed current decision-making experiences, unmet needs, and recommendations for a patient decision aid. Two researchers coded and analyzed the transcripts using NVivo (QSR International). A stakeholder advisory panel guided the study and interpretation of results.

resultsA total of 51 participants participated in 46 interviews (18 providers and 28 survivors) and 1 ad hoc focus group (7 survivors). The primary themes included the importance of fertility decisions for survivorship, the existence of significant but potentially modifiable barriers to optimal decision making, and a strong support for developing a carefully designed patient decision aid website. Providers reported needing an intervention that could quickly raise awareness and facilitate timely referrals. Survivors reported needing understandable information and help with managing uncertainty, costs, and pressures. Design recommendations included providing tailored information (eg, by age and cancer type), optional interactive features, and multimedia delivery at multiple time points, preferably outside the consultation.

conclusionsDecision making about fertility preservation is an important step in providing high-quality comprehensive cancer care and a priority for many survivors' optimal quality of life. Decision support interventions are needed to address gaps in care and help women quickly navigate toward an informed, values-congruent decision. Survivors and providers support developing a patient decision aid website to make information directly available to women outside of the consultation and to provide self-tailored content according to women's clinical characteristics and their information-seeking and deliberative styles.

Indexed as

cancerdecision support techniquesfertility preservationneeds assessmentoncofertilityoncologypatient decision aidspatient needsshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID34096871
PMCPMC8218210

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.