The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2016
Provider Influences on Sperm Banking Outcomes Among Adolescent Males Newly Diagnosed With Cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Klosky James L, Anderson L Elizabeth, Russell Kathryn M, Huang Lu, Zhang Hui, Schover Leslie R, Simmons Jessica L, Kutteh William H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine provider communication and sociodemographic factors which associate with sperm banking outcomes in at-risk adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer.
METHODS: A prospective single-group quasi-experimental study design was used to test the contributions of provider factors on sperm banking outcomes. Medical providers (N = 52, 86.5% oncologists) and 99 of their at-risk adolescent patients from eight leading pediatric oncology centers in North America completed questionnaires querying provider factors and patient sperm banking outcomes. Logistic regression with single covariates was used to test each provider factor as a potential correlate of the two binary sperm banking study outcomes (collection attempt/no attempt and successful sperm bank/no bank). Multicovariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for specified banking outcomes.
RESULTS: Fertility referral (OR, 9.01; 95% CI, 2.54-31.90; p < .001) and provider comfort/skills in negotiating barriers to sperm banking with families (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.03-3.63; p < .04) were associated with collection attempts. Adolescents who were referred for a specialized fertility consultation were also almost five times more likely to successfully bank (OR, 4.96; 95% CI, 1.54-16.00; p < .01) compared to those who were not.
CONCLUSIONS: Provider training in communicating/managing adolescents and their families about sperm banking, and increasing utilization of fertility preservation referrals, should increase the proportion of at-risk males preserving fertility before treatment initiation.
METHODS: A prospective single-group quasi-experimental study design was used to test the contributions of provider factors on sperm banking outcomes. Medical providers (N = 52, 86.5% oncologists) and 99 of their at-risk adolescent patients from eight leading pediatric oncology centers in North America completed questionnaires querying provider factors and patient sperm banking outcomes. Logistic regression with single covariates was used to test each provider factor as a potential correlate of the two binary sperm banking study outcomes (collection attempt/no attempt and successful sperm bank/no bank). Multicovariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for specified banking outcomes.
RESULTS: Fertility referral (OR, 9.01; 95% CI, 2.54-31.90; p < .001) and provider comfort/skills in negotiating barriers to sperm banking with families (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.03-3.63; p < .04) were associated with collection attempts. Adolescents who were referred for a specialized fertility consultation were also almost five times more likely to successfully bank (OR, 4.96; 95% CI, 1.54-16.00; p < .01) compared to those who were not.
CONCLUSIONS: Provider training in communicating/managing adolescents and their families about sperm banking, and increasing utilization of fertility preservation referrals, should increase the proportion of at-risk males preserving fertility before treatment initiation.