↓ Skip to main content

Physicians’ practice of discussing fertility preservation with cancer patients and the associated attitudes and barriers

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 27%
Student > Master 4 27%
Unspecified 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Unspecified 4 27%
Psychology 3 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Other 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,127,203
of 12,347,188 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,407
of 2,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,366
of 354,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#64
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,347,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 354,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.