Reproductive Health Experiences of Females Diagnosed with Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer: A Multi-Method Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Given the increasing risk of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC) among adults under 50 years, it is important to understand impacts on reproductive health. Our objective was to assess experiences with reproductive health after yCRC diagnosis among females. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among females, 18 years or older, who have been diagnosed yCRC and are able to communicate in English. Data were gathered using an online survey involving both quantitative (e.g., multiple choice) and qualitative (e.g., open-ended text) questions on pregnancy history, influence of yCRC on reproductive decisions, and experiences with reproductive healthcare. RESULTS: Altogether, 101 females with yCRC participated, including 23 who had never been pregnant and 78 who had been pregnant. yCRC influenced family planning goals for one-third of participants. Furthermore, compared to participants who completed treatment, those currently undergoing treatment had higher odds of indicating their yCRC diagnosis influenced family planning goals (adjusted odds ratio 4.93; 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 18.78). Although 53 (52.5%) participants indicated having discussions regarding reproductive health with healthcare provider(s), 44 (43.6%) did not. Content analysis of open-ended survey questions identified themes on the emotional impacts, experiences with reproductive healthcare, reproductive and family planning considerations, and the related issue of sexual health impacts of yCRC. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in care, related to limited reproductive health discussions, influence of yCRC on family planning, and experiencing lasting reproductive health impacts highlight the need for improving reproductive healthcare, particularly for females diagnosed with yCRC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".