4.7 Article

Parental influences on sperm banking attempts among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 108, Issue 6, Pages 1043-1049

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.08.039

Keywords

Adolescent cancer; collection attempt; fertility preservation; infertility; sperm banking

Funding

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [HD-061296]
  2. National Cancer Institute [CA021765]
  3. American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the influence of parental sociodemographic, communication, and psychological factors on sperm collection attempts among at-risk adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer. Design: Prospective, single group, observational study design. Setting: Pediatric oncology centers. Patient(s): Parents (N = 144) of 122 newly diagnosed adolescent males at increased risk for infertility secondary to cancer therapy. Intervention(s): Survey-based assessment of parent factors associated with adolescent collection attempts. Main Outcome Measure(s): Attempt of manual collection of sperm. Result(s): Parental recommendation to bank sperm (odds ratio [OR] 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-11.76) and perceived selfefficacy to facilitate banking (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.02-1.41) were associated with an increased likelihood of making a collection attempt. Conclusion(s): Parental recommendation to bank is a critical influence for sperm banking among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer. These findings highlight the importance of effective communication between parents, patients, and health-care teams when discussing preservation options. Parent perceptions of their ability to facilitate sperm banking at the time of diagnosis should also be targeted in future interventions. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT01152268 ((C) 2017 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available