Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Determinants of fertility issues experienced by young women diagnosed with breast or gynaecological cancer – a quantitative, cross-cultural study

Authors: Aleksandra Sobota, Gozde Ozakinci

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Although there is a recognition of the importance of fertility to young women with cancer, we do not know who is at risk of distress related to fertility issues following diagnosis. We investigated the determinants of fertility-related distress adopting a cross-cultural perspective and using the Common Sense Model (CSM). We chose the CSM as a theoretical framework as it allows to explore how individuals conceptualise illness within the socio-cultural context.

Methods

British and Polish women with breast or gynaecological cancer were recruited through outpatient clinics or online outlets and completed a questionnaire. Linear regression, mediation and moderated mediation methods were performed.

Results

One hundred sixty-four women participated (mean age 34.55 (SD = 6.66); 78.7% had gynaecological cancer). The determinants of fertility-related distress were: country of origin, recruitment site, negative affect, desire to have children, treatment regret, and total illness perception score. The impact of the desire to have children on fertility-related distress was mediated by psychological value of children, perceived consequences of cancer on one’s life, emotional representation, and treatment-related regret. Country of origin moderated the relationship between the desire to have children and fertility-related distress when mediated by treatment-related regret.

Conclusions

The CSM proved useful in investigating predictors of fertility-related distress, with emotional, rather than cognitive representation of illness determining its levels. Socio-cultural background played a role in determining one’s fertility-related distress and contributed to the explanation of the relationship between one’s desire to have children, treatment-related regret, and fertility-related distress.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Aziz NM, Rowland JH. Trends and advances in cancer survivorship research: challenge and opportunity. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003;13(3):248–66.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Zebrack B. Information and service needs for young adult cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2008;16(12):1353–60.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zebrack B. Information and service needs for young adult cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(4):349–57.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zebrack BJ, Mills J, Weitzman TS. Health and supportive care needs of young adult cancer patients and survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2007;1(2):137–45.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zebrack B, Bleyer A, Albritton K, Medearis S, Tang J. Assessing the health care needs of adolescent and young adult cancer patients and survivors. Cancer. 2006;107(12):2915–23.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Goossens J, Delbaere I, Van Lancker A, Beeckman D, Verhaeghe S, Van Hecke A. Cancer patients’ and professional caregivers’ needs, preferences and factors associated with receiving and providing fertility-related information: a mixed-methods systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(2):300–19.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Holton S, Kirkman M, Rowe H, Fisher J. The childbearing concerns and related information needs and preferences of women of reproductive age with a chronic, noncommunicable health condition: a systematic review. Womens Health Issues. 2012;22(6):e541–52.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Peate M, Meiser B, Hickey M, Friedlander M. The fertility-related concerns, needs and preferences of younger women with breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116(2):215–23.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, Patrizio P, Wallace WH, Hagerty K, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2917–31.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Loren AW, Mangu PB, Beck LN, Brennan L, Magdalinski AJ, Partridge AH, et al. Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2500–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
13.
Howard-Anderson J, Ganz PA, Bower JE, Stanton AL. Quality of life, fertility concerns, and behavioral health outcomes in younger breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(5):386–405.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Adams E, McCann L, Armes J, Richardson A, Stark D, Watson E, et al. The experiences, needs and concerns of younger women with breast cancer: a meta-ethnography. Psychooncology. 2011;20(8):851–61.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Goncalves V, Sehovic I, Quinn G. Childbearing attitudes and decisions of young breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(2):279–92.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Sobota A, Ozakinci G. Fertility and parenthood issues in young female cancer patients--a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(4):707–21.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Canada AL, Schover LR. The psychosocial impact of interrupted childbearing in long-term female cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2012;21(2):134–43.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Gorman JR, Malcarne VL, Roesch SC, Madlensky L, Pierce JP. Depressive symptoms among young breast cancer survivors: the importance of reproductive concerns. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123(2):477–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Partridge AH, Gelber S, Peppercorn J, Sampson E, Knudsen K, Laufer M, et al. Web-based survey of fertility issues in young women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(20):4174–83.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Ruddy KJ, Gelber SI, Tamimi RM, Ginsburg ES, Schapira L, Come SE, et al. Prospective study of fertility concerns and preservation strategies in young women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(11):1151–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Greil AL, Slauson-Blevins K, McQuillan J. The experience of infertility: a review of recent literature. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(1):140–62.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Senkus E, Gomez H, Dirix L, Jerusalem G, Murray E, Van Tienhoven G, et al. Attitudes of young patients with breast cancer toward fertility loss related to adjuvant systemic therapies. EORTC study 10002 BIG 3-98. Psychooncology. 2014;23(2):173–82.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Macfarlane A, O’Reilly-de Brun M. Using a theory-driven conceptual framework in qualitative health research. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(5):607–18.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Leventhal H, Meyer D, Nerenz D. The common sense representation of illness danger. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1980.
25.
Leventhal H, Leventhal EA, Contrada RJ. Self-regulation, health, and behavior: a perceptual-cognitive approach. Psychol Health. 1998;13(4):717–33.CrossRef
26.
Leventhal H, Brisette I, Leventhal EA. The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. In: Cameron L, Leventhal H, editors. The self regulation of health and illness behaviour. Oxford: Routledge; 2003. p. 42–65.
27.
Hagger MS, Orbell S. A meta-analytic review of the common-sense model of illness representations. Psychol Health. 2003;18(2):141–84.CrossRef
28.
Benyamini Y, Leventhal H, Leventhal EA. Attributions and health. In: Ayers S, editor. Cambridge handbook of psychology, health and medicine. Cambridge. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 26–33.CrossRef
29.
Lau RR, Hartman KA. Common sense representations of common illnesses. Health Psychol. 1983;2(2):167–85.CrossRef
30.
31.
Weiss DS. The impact of event scale-revised. In: Wilson JP, Keane TM, editors. Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD. 2nd ed. New York: the Guildford press; 2004. p. 168–89.
32.
Juczynski Z, Oginska-Bulik N. Pomiar zaburzen po stresie traumatycznym - Polska wersja Zrewidowanej Skali Wplywu Zdarzen. Psychiatr Psychiatr. 2009;6(1):15–25.
33.
Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, Weinman J. The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60(6):631–7.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(6):1063–70.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Brzozowski P. Skala uczuć pozytywnych i negatywnych SUPIN: polska adaptacja skali PANAS Davida Watsona i Lee Ann Clark : podręcznik. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego; 2010.
36.
Hoffman LW, Hoffman ML. The value of children to parents. In: Fawcett JT, editor. Psychological perspectives on population. New York: Basic Books; 1973. p. 19–76.
37.
Huijts T, Kraaykamp G, Subramanian SV. Childlessness and psychological well-being in context: a multilevel study on 24 European countries. Eur Sociol Rev. 2013;29(1):32–47.CrossRef
38.
IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp; 2013.
39.
Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: The Guildford Press; 2013.
40.
Green SB. How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivar Behav Res. 1991;26(3):499–510.CrossRef
41.
Field AP. Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex, drugs and Rock’n’roll). London: SAGE; 2009.
42.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Educ. 2013; p. 983.
43.
Benyamini Y, Gozlan M, Kokia E. On the self-regulation of a health threat:cognitions, coping, and emotions among women undergoing treatment for infertility. Cognit Ther Res. 2004;28(5):577–92.CrossRef
44.
Benyamini Y, Gozlan M, Kokia E. Women’s and men’s perceptions of infertility and their associations with psychological adjustment: a dyadic approach. Br J Health Psychol. 2009;14(Pt 1):1–16.CrossRefPubMed
45.
46.
Watson D, Pennebaker JW. Health complaints, stress, and distress: exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychol Rev. 1989;96(2):234–54.CrossRefPubMed
47.
48.
Letourneau JM, Ebbel EE, Katz PP, Katz A, Ai WZ, Chien AJ, et al. Pretreatment fertility counseling and fertility preservation improve quality of life in reproductive age women with cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(6):1710–7.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Peate M, Meiser B, Friedlander M, Zorbas H, Rovelli S, Sansom-Daly U, et al. It’s now or never: fertility-related knowledge, decision-making preferences, and treatment intentions in young women with breast cancer--an Australian fertility decision aid collaborative group study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(13):1670–7.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Radkowska-Walkowicz M. The creation of “monsters”: the discourse of opposition to in vitro fertilization in Poland. Reprod Health Matters. 2012;20(40):30–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Determinants of fertility issues experienced by young women diagnosed with breast or gynaecological cancer – a quantitative, cross-cultural study
Authors
Aleksandra Sobota
Gozde Ozakinci
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4766-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Cancer 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Impact of follow-up interval on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after curative ablation

Research article

Feasibility and acceptability of combining cognitive behavioural therapy techniques with swallowing therapy in head and neck cancer dysphagia

Study protocol

A randomized controlled trial of a skills training for oncologists and a communication aid for patients to stimulate shared decision making about palliative systemic treatment (CHOICE): study protocol

Research article

Oxaliplatin plus leucovorin and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX-4) as a salvage chemotherapy in heavily-pretreated platinum-resistant ovarian cancer

Research article

Detection of mutations in SF3B1, EIF1AX and GNAQ in primary orbital melanoma by candidate gene analysis

Research article

Projected cervical Cancer incidence in Swaziland using three methods and local survey estimates
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits