Attitudes, Beliefs, and Trends Regarding Adolescent Oncofertility Discussions: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Due to improved survival rates of adolescent cancers, increasing attention is paid to addressing patients' future quality of life after treatment. A salient quality of life issue for adolescent survivors is reproductive capacity. Discussing oncofertility, that is, cancer treatment's possible effects on fertility and fertility preservation (FP) options, is a means to address this concern by informing patients and parents regarding options available to them to prevent future struggles with infertility. This systematic literature review aggregates and summarizes the attitudes, beliefs, and patterns of behavior of all stakeholders (i.e., patients, parents, and healthcare providers) in oncofertility discussions when the patient is an adolescent (12-17 years old). METHODS: English, French, and German literature was systematically identified according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, via four databases, using several combinations of search terms. Book chapters, dissertations, and peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies are included in this review. RESULTS: Adolescents and parents have similar informational and counseling needs. Both seek to be fully informed about cancer treatment's effects on fertility and FP options. Adolescents have varying experiences of oncofertility discussions and decision making due to sex and/or age differences. Parents and healthcare professionals alike sometimes underestimate the importance of fertility for adolescent cancer patients. Healthcare professionals hold various beliefs and practices with respect to adolescent oncofertility discussions. Many are cognizant of the various barriers that impede successful discussion and strive to overcome them. CONCLUSION: In order to overcome discussion barriers and meet adolescent patients and their parents' informational needs, it is essential to create and implement practice guidelines, as well as properly educate and train healthcare professionals about oncofertility issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".