Li-Xia Zhu1, Lei Jin1, Jing-Hang Jiang2, Liu Yang1, Zi-Shui Fang1, Meng Wang1, Ying Xiao1, Qing-Song Xi3. 1. Reproductive Medicine Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. 2. Reproductive Medicine Center, Jingmen Second People's Hospital, Jingmen, 448000, China. 3. Cancer Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. xiqingsong@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to offer an update assessment of the knowledge of Chinese oncologists on female fertility preservation, and identify the determinants that influence the implementation of fertility preservation. METHODS: A total of 713 Chinese oncologists with different specialties completed the online self-report questionnaire to assess their understanding of fertility risks in cancer treatment, knowledge on female fertility preservation, and perceptions on the barriers in referring patients for fertility preservation. RESULTS: Although most oncologists were familiar with fertility risk in cancer treatment, half of them lacked the knowledge for reproduction and preservation methods. In the multivariable model, oncologists in a hospital with a specialized reproductive institution, positive precaution for fertility risk, and fertility preservation discussion with patients were significantly correlated with the possibility of fertility preservation referral. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention targets based on the update evaluation and identified influencing determinants will be helpful for all the oncofertility researchers, oncologists and institutions in future efforts for well-established female fertility preservation services.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to offer an update assessment of the knowledge of Chinese oncologists on female fertility preservation, and identify the determinants that influence the implementation of fertility preservation. METHODS: A total of 713 Chinese oncologists with different specialties completed the online self-report questionnaire to assess their understanding of fertility risks in cancer treatment, knowledge on female fertility preservation, and perceptions on the barriers in referring patients for fertility preservation. RESULTS: Although most oncologists were familiar with fertility risk in cancer treatment, half of them lacked the knowledge for reproduction and preservation methods. In the multivariable model, oncologists in a hospital with a specialized reproductive institution, positive precaution for fertility risk, and fertility preservation discussion with patients were significantly correlated with the possibility of fertility preservation referral. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention targets based on the update evaluation and identified influencing determinants will be helpful for all the oncofertility researchers, oncologists and institutions in future efforts for well-established female fertility preservation services.