Cited by 31Cancer survivorship and careReproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Biology and Fertility

Efficacy of a web-based psychoeducational intervention for young adults with fertility-related distress following cancer (Fex-Can): randomized controlled trial

Open access
Micaux, Claire, Wiklander, Maria, Eriksson, Lars E, Wettergren, Lena, Lampic, Claudia·2022·JMIR Cancer

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Threatened fertility following cancer diagnosis in the reproductive age may severely impact emotional and psychosocial well-being in survivorship. Effective web-based interventions for fertility-related distress have been lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test whether the Fertility and Sexuality following Cancer (Fex-Can) intervention is superior to standard care in reducing fertility-related distress and related psychosocial outcomes in young adults with cancer. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial evaluated a 12-week, web-based, automated self-help intervention for fertility-related distress following cancer-Fex-Can Fertility. Individuals were identified via Swedish national quality registries, and those reporting fertility-related distress 1.5 years after diagnosis were invited. A total of 100 women and 24 men (aged 19-40 years) answered self-administered surveys at baseline (T0), directly after the intervention (T1), and 3 months later (T2). The main outcome was fertility-related distress, which was measured by using the 6-dimension Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC) scale. The secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire), emotional distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), fertility-related knowledge, and fertility self-efficacy. In addition, the intervention group (IG) reported self-perceived changes in problems related to fertility after cancer (T1). 2-tailed t tests and linear mixed models, including intention-to-treat and subgroup analyses, were performed to compare the effects of the intervention with those of standard care. RESULTS: Although 62% (31/50) of the participants in the IG stated that their concerns about fertility were fewer after the intervention, there were few statistically significant group differences in the main outcome (RCAC) at T1 and T2. Compared with controls, the IG rated lower distress concerning the dimension child's health at T2 (P=.003; effect size [ES]=0.64). This difference was maintained when adding group and time interactions (intention-to-treat: P=.003; ES=0.58). The IG also had better self-perceived cancer-related fertility knowledge at T1 (P=.05; ES=0.35) and T2 (P=.01; ES=0.42) than the control group. Subgroup analyses based on dose or adherence and baseline RCAC scores did not substantially alter these results. Overall, the use of the web-based program was low. CONCLUSIONS: The Fex-Can intervention had small to moderate positive effects on cancer-related fertility knowledge and distress related to child's health. The lack of group differences in other dimensions of fertility distress and related secondary outcomes contrasted with reports on self-perceived improvement after the intervention. The Fex-Can Fertility program may be a useful complement to routine psychosocial support in the clinical care of young women and men with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry 36621459; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN36621459.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/33239

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Micaux, C., Wiklander, M., Eriksson, L. E., Wettergren, L., & Lampic, C.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • University of London (GB)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
Venue
JMIR Cancer
Published
2022-03-29
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
e33239
ISSN
2369-1999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4221094794
Cited by
31
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
cancer survivors, young adults, fertility knowledge, health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, self-help intervention, intervention adherence, dose-response relationship, subgroup analysis, quality of life after cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review