This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.
ABSTRACT
Objective
To assess recall bias by evaluating how well female cancer survivors remember details regarding their cancer diagnosis, treatment, and fertility preservation (FP) counseling.
Oncofertility literature cites recall bias as a pitfall of retrospective surveys (1,2), but limited data exist to quantify this bias (3).
Design
Retrospective secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data
Setting
Single academic medical center
Patients
Female oncology patients of reproductive age, 18-44 years old, at least 6 months past their last chemotherapy treatment
Interventions
Not applicable
Main Outcome Measures
Recall of details surrounding cancer diagnosis and chemotherapy regimens, recall of FP counseling and ovarian reserve testing, and rates of chart-documented FP counseling
Result(s)
In total, 117 patients completed the survey, with 112 verified via chart review. When asked to report chemotherapy regimen, 57% (64 of the 112) reported “I don’t know/prefer not to say.” Regarding FP, 80% (90 of the 112) denied being offered counseling. Of the 37 (33%) who had documented FP conversations, 13 (35%) did not recall mention of fertility. Only 2 of 8 patients with ovarian reserve testing recalled this being performed at their initial visit. Multivariable logistic regression revealed older age was significantly associated with not being offered FP (OR 0.87, p=0.02).
Conclusion
Our results confirm that accuracy of oncology patients’ reporting is limited by poor recall, particularly regarding their specific chemotherapy regimen. More than 1 in 3 patients documented to have been offered FP counseling do not recall this discussion. Importantly, only one-third of cancer survivors had chart-documented FP counseling. Increased efforts are needed to ensure adequate follow-up beyond the initial visit.
Keywords
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
December 21,
2022
Received in revised form:
December 19,
2022
Received:
April 1,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Accepted ManuscriptFootnotes
Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest that are relevant to the content of this article. This paper in abstract form was accepted for oral presentation at American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) this October 2021.
Funding: The primary study on which this secondary analysis was based was generously supported by the Charles Hammond Research Fund, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
IRB: This study was approved by the Duke University Internal Review Board.
Identification
Copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy
