Evaluation of an Educational Whiteboard Video to Introduce Fertility Preservation to Female Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fertility is an important issue for adolescents and young adults with cancer facing potential infertility. Egg cryopreservation options exist, but information is sometimes overwhelming. We evaluated a fertility preservation educational video and assessed patient and family knowledge and impressions at pre- and post-video timepoints. METHODS: We developed a whiteboard video to explain egg cryopreservation to patients and families. The video was evaluated on the basis of patient education best practices (readability, understandability, actionability). Participants were recruited using convenience sampling in oncology clinics. They completed questionnaires before and after watching to assess knowledge and interest. Inclusion criteria were patients age 13-39 years and minimum 1 month from diagnosis. Descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, and mean comparisons were conducted. RESULTS: The video script read at a grade 8 reading level. Average understandability and actionability scores were below the acceptable standard. We recruited 108 patients (mean age, 27 years) and 39 caregivers/partners. Patients' knowledge about fertility preservation increased after viewing the video. Interest was high before and after, and satisfaction was high for both patients and caregivers. Participants appreciated information on process, procedure, and delivery but desired more information on logistics, including cost. CONCLUSION: A targeted patient education video about fertility preservation options can build knowledge and encourage discussions about infertility. The video can be used as a model for videos on related topics to provide accurate information in a youth-friendly medium; however, following patient education best practices for readability, understandability, and actionability may increase video effectiveness. Future research should assess how audiovisual patient education material affects patient behavior.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".