| Title |
Physicians’ practice of discussing fertility preservation with cancer patients and the associated attitudes and barriers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-016-3495-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emi Takeuchi, Masashi Kato, Saho Wada, Saran Yoshida, Chikako Shimizu, Yoko Miyoshi |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to describe physicians' clinical practice of discussing fertility issues with cancer patients and determine the factors associated with such discussion. In this cross-sectional study, a nationwide Internet survey was conducted among physicians who provided daily medical care to cancer patients at hospitals or clinics. Participants answered a questionnaire assessing characteristics, discussion practices, attitudes, and barriers regarding fertility preservation. Among the 180 participants, 42% discussed fertility issues with patients daily, and 30% had experience in referring patients to fertility preservation specialists. A multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that those who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements "physicians are responsible for discussing fertility preservation" (OR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.14-3.63, p < 0.05) and "patients who have an exceedingly aggressive disease and need immediate cancer treatment should not be told about fertility issues" (OR =1.84, 95% CI 1.09-3.10, p < 0.05) were nearly twice as likely to discuss fertility issues with patients. Compared to Western countries, fertility issues are less likely to be discussed in Japan. To increase opportunities for patients to discuss fertility issues, the ASCO guidelines should be widely understood. Additionally, these results suggest that physicians who are more likely to discuss fertility issues might feel more conflicted about whether they in fact should discuss such issues with patients with poor prognosis or insufficient time for cancer treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,185,649
of 25,245,273 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,457
of 5,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,819
of 428,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#66
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,245,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.