MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3039392356 · doi:10.1101/2020.06.30.20143891

Theory-guided development of fertility care implementation strategies for adolescents and young adult cancer survivors

2020· preprint· en· W3039392356 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Dornish, Emily Yang, Jamie Gruspe, Erin R. Roesch, Paula Aristizabal, Gregory A. Aarons, Sally A.D. Romero, Michelle Takemoto, Bonnie N. Kaiser, H. Irene Su

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMinnow Environmental (Canada)
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsOncofertilityFertility preservationImplementation researchReferralFertilityMedicineContext (archaeology)Thematic analysisHealth careFamily medicineQualitative researchNursingPopulationPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Oncofertility care remains under-implemented across oncology and fertility care settings, with limited tools to scale up effective implementation strategies. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we aimed to systematically assess factors that influence implementation of oncofertility care and map strategies, particularly electronic health record (EHR)-enabled ones, that fit adult and pediatric oncology care contexts. Methods Using purposeful sampling, we recruited healthcare providers and female adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors from a comprehensive cancer center and a freestanding children’s hospital. Participants underwent semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Using thematic analysis combining inductive codes with CFIR-based deductive codes, we characterized barriers and facilitators to oncofertility care and implementation strategies. Two coders independently coded each transcript, with a third coder resolving discrepancies by consensus. Results We recruited 19 oncology and fertility providers and 9 AYA survivors. We identified barriers and facilitators to fertility care in the CFIR domains of individual, inner setting, outer setting, and process, allowing us to conceptualize oncofertility care in three necessary stages: screening, referral, and fertility preservation counseling. To fit an adult and a children’s context, five implementation strategies were mapped: needs screen using a best practice advisory, referral order, telehealth fertility counseling, provider audit and feedback, and a provider educational session. All but provider education are facilitated by the EHR system. Conclusions An implementation science approach enabled systematic assessment of oncofertility care and co-design of implementation strategies with stakeholders, providing a theory-based approach and scalable EHR tools to support wider dissemination.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicReproductive Biology and Fertility→French-language works237,207→