BackgroundAwareness of infertility risk factors is an essential first step to safeguard future fertility. Whereas several studies have examined university students’ awareness of female fertility and related risk factors, the topic of male infertility has not been well examined. The objective of this study was to assess young men and women’s awareness, knowledge and perceptions of infertility, male and female infertility risk factors and assisted reproductive technologies (ART).MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted in 2008 with a multi-ethnic sample of sixteen male and twenty-three female Ottawa university students, followed by qualitative data analysis to identify major themes. Interview topics included awareness of male and female infertility risk factors, infertility diagnosis/treatments and personal options in the event of future infertility.ResultsParticipants were generally familiar with infertility as a biomedical health problem, could identify sex-specific risk factors but overestimated fertility of women in their thirties and ART success rates. Reproductive health knowledge gaps and confusion of the physiological life-stage of menopause with infertility were apparent. Most participants would pursue in vitro fertilization or international adoption in the event of personal infertility. Some participants wished to use a ‘natural’ approach and were concerned with potential side effects of ART-related medications.ConclusionsThe general awareness of infertility in young adults is promising and supports the potential uptake for health promotion of fertility preservation. This study underscores the continued need for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education and promotion for adolescents and young adults.

Purpose Whether the ASCO Value Framework and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) measure similar constructs of clinical benefit is unclear. It is also unclear how they relate to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and funding recommendations in the United Kingdom and Canada. Methods Randomized clinical trials of oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Health Canada between 2006 and August 2015 were identified and scored using the ASCO version 1 (v1) framework, ASCO version 2 (v2) framework, and ESMO-MCBS by at least two independent reviewers. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to assess construct (between frameworks) and criterion validity (against QALYs from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review [pCODR]). Associations between scores and NICE/pCODR recommendations were examined. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Results From 109 included randomized clinical trials, 108 ASCOv1, 111 ASCOv2, and 83 ESMO scores were determined. Correlation coefficients for ASCOv1 versus ESMO, ASCOv2 versus ESMO, and ASCOv1 versus ASCOv2 were 0.36 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.54), 0.17 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.37), and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.63), respectively. Compared with NICE QALYs, correlation coefficients were 0.45 (ASCOv1), 0.53 (ASCOv2), and 0.46 (ESMO); with pCODR QALYs, coefficients were 0.19 (ASCOv1), 0.20 (ASCOv2), and 0.36 (ESMO). None of the frameworks were significantly associated with NICE/pCODR recommendations. Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks. Conclusion The weak-to-moderate correlations of the ASCO frameworks with the ESMO-MCBS, as well as their correlations with QALYs and with NICE/pCODR funding recommendations, suggest different constructs of clinical benefit measured. Construct convergent validity with the ESMO-MCBS did not increase with the updated ASCO framework.

No abstract

BackgroundInfertility patients are increasingly using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to supplement or replace conventional fertility treatments. The objective of this study was to determine the roles of CAM practitioners in the support and treatment of infertility.MethodsTen semi-structured interviews were conducted in Ottawa, Canada in 2011 with CAM practitioners who specialized in naturopathy, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, hypnotherapy and integrated medicine.ResultsCAM practitioners played an active role in both treatment and support of infertility, using a holistic, interdisciplinary and individualized approach. CAM practitioners recognized biological but also environmental and psychosomatic determinants of infertility. Participants were receptive to working with physicians, however little collaboration was described.ConclusionsIntegrated infertility patient care through both collaboration with CAM practitioners and incorporation of CAM’s holistic, individualized and interdisciplinary approaches would greatly benefit infertility patients.