Table 1.

Studies Included in the Review

Authors	Country	Study Design	Population	Data Collection Methods	Factors playing a role in the discussion of FP
Anderson et al. (2008)	UK	Quantitative	Oncologists for 1030 new patients (exact number of oncologists not reported)	Data sheet filled out for each new patient registered	Patient factors: age, gender
Clayton et al. (2008)	USA	Quantitative	210 pediatric oncology nurses	Self-administered questionnaires	Patient factors: marital status, have children
Crawshaw et al. (2004)	UK	Qualitative	22 doctors, nurses, scientists and social workers working in assisted conception or pediatric oncology	Semi-structured interviews	Sense of comfort Knowledge of consenting pediatric patients
De Vries et al. (2009)	Netherlands	Qualitative	14 pediatric oncology physicians; 15 parents of male adolescent cancer patients	Semi-structured interviews	Parent factors: parental role and degree of involvement of the young person
Goodwin et al. (2007)	USA	Quantitative	16 pediatric oncology physicians, 14 nurses or nurse practitioners	Self-administered questionnaires	Knowledge of the effects of treatment Patient factors: timing of treatment
Kohler et al. (2011)	USA	Quantitative	209 pediatric oncology specialists (93% pediatric oncologists, 3% nurse or nurse practitioners, 1% reproductive endocrinologists, 3% other)	Online questionnaires	Knowledge of guidelines Patient factors: gender
Nagel & Neal (2008)	Canada	Qualitative	17 oncology nurses and 3 reproductive health nurses	Open-ended, self- administered questionnaire	Sense of comfort Knowledge of process and consequences of treatment Availability of educational resources for patients
Overbeek et al. (2014)	Netherlands	Quantitative	37 pediatric oncologists	Mailed survey	Knowledge of FP options Patient factors: prognosis, distress Availability of educational materials to counsel patients
Quinn et al. (2009a)*	USA	Qualitative	Pooled data from 2 studies: 26 pediatric oncologists and 28 adult oncologists	Semi-structured interviews	Knowledge of FP options Patient factors: perception of distress, prognosis Parent factors: perception of distress
Reebals, Brown & Bruckner (2006)	USA	Quantitative	27 nurses and nurse practitioners caring for male adolescent cancer patients	Self-administered questionnaires	Knowledge of FP procedure
Schover et al. (2002) *	USA	Quantitative	162 oncology physicians and fellows (63% medical oncologists, 21% surgical oncologists, and 16% radiation oncologists)	Mailed questionnaires	Knowledge of FP procedure Knowledge of costs Parent factors: involvement in the consent process Patient factors: involvement in the consent/assent process
Thompson, Holland, & Joubert (2013)	Australia	Mixed methods	60 oncology professionals (15 allied health workers, 32 nurses, 6 oncologists, 7 from Victoria AYA Cancer Service)	Questionnaire with close-ended and open-ended questions	Sense of comfort Knowledge of fertility preservation Parent factors: Involvement of parents in the consent process Availability of educational materials
Vadaparampil et al. (2007) Vadaparampil et al. (2008b)	USA	Quantitative	115 pediatric oncology nurses	Self-administered questionnaires	Sense of comfort Patient factors: HIV status, marital/partnership status, patient initiated conversation, sexual maturity, prognosis, timing of treatment Parent factors: interest in the topic Availability of educational materials
Vadaparampil et al. (2008a) Quinn et al. (2009b)	USA	Qualitative	24 pediatric hematologists/oncologists	Semi-structured interviews	Sense of comfort Knowledge of how to have discussions with young people Patient factors: cultural background, receptiveness, age, insurance Parent factors: receptiveness and cultural background Availability of educational resources

^*This article includes data from HCPs treating both adult and young patients. It was included in this review because it discusses the specific factors influencing the discussion of fertility preservation with children and young people.