For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
37
views
52
references
 Top references
cited by
18
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      1,238
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Healthcare professionals' views on discussing fertility preservation with young cancer patients: a mixed method systematic review of the literature : Healthcare professionals' views on discussing fertility preservation

      Author(s): 1 , 2 , 3 , 3
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: Psycho-Oncology
      Publisher: Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In spite of efforts to guarantee patients are adequately informed about their risk of fertility loss and offered treatment for fertility preservation (FP), previous studies have reported that this topic is not routinely discussed with patients, especially with younger patient populations. A mixed method systematic review was undertaken to explore the factors shaping the discussion of FP with children (0-15 years) and adolescents/young adults (16-24 years) with cancer.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Paul A Harris, Robert Taylor, Robert Thielke … (2009)
          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
          Article 0 comments Cited 11104 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

            David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2012)
            David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Article 0 comments Cited 5236 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review.

              Romina Pace, Pierre Pluye, Gillian Bartlett … (2012)
              Systematic literature reviews identify, select, appraise, and synthesize relevant literature on a particular topic. Typically, these reviews examine primary studies based on similar methods, e.g., experimental trials. In contrast, interest in a new form of review, known as mixed studies review (MSR), which includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, is growing. In MSRs, reviewers appraise studies that use different methods allowing them to obtain in-depth answers to complex research questions. However, appraising the quality of studies with different methods remains challenging. To facilitate systematic MSRs, a pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) has been developed at McGill University (a checklist and a tutorial), which can be used to concurrently appraise the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. The purpose of the present study is to test the reliability and efficiency of a pilot version of the MMAT. The Center for Participatory Research at McGill conducted a systematic MSR on the benefits of Participatory Research (PR). Thirty-two PR evaluation studies were appraised by two independent reviewers using the pilot MMAT. Among these, 11 (34%) involved nurses as researchers or research partners. Appraisal time was measured to assess efficiency. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating a kappa statistic based on dichotomized responses for each criterion. An appraisal score was determined for each study, which allowed the calculation of an overall intra-class correlation. On average, it took 14 min to appraise a study (excluding the initial reading of articles). Agreement between reviewers was moderate to perfect with regards to MMAT criteria, and substantial with respect to the overall quality score of appraised studies. The MMAT is unique, thus the reliability of the pilot MMAT is promising, and encourages further development. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Article 0 comments Cited 289 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Psycho-Oncology
                Abbreviated Title: Psycho-Oncology
                Publisher: Wiley
                ISSN: 10579249
                Publication date Created: January 2017
                Publication date (Print): January 2017
                Publication date (Electronic): February 18 2016
                Volume: 26
                Issue: 1
                Pages: 4-14
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Applied Health Research; University College London; London United Kingdom
                [2 ]Department of Health Behavior and Policy; Virginia Commonwealth University; Richmond VA United States
                [3 ]Tompkins-McCaw Library; Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries; Richmond VA United States
                Article
                DOI: 10.1002/pon.4092
                PMC ID: 5025377
                PubMed ID: 26890220
                SO-VID: b1abe942-7f3b-4922-8e1d-456b81b293c4
                Copyright © © 2016
                License:

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,238

                See all similar

                Cited by18

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors840

                See all reference authors