Constructing a structural equation model of fertility anxiety, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors

Constructing a structural equation model of fertility anxiety, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Constructing a structural equation model of fertility anxiety, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors Xiaoqin Wu, Yan Ou, Yejuan Peng, Yuying Xiong, Mei Tong, Yanhui Zhou, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4108249/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aimed to explore the associations between fertility anxiety, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors. We assessed 516 cancer survivors using fertility anxiety, medical coping, and risk perception scales. The score obtained for fertility anxiety was (63.227 ± 12.664); the score for the coping dimension was (21.114 ± 6.478); the score for the avoidance dimension was (16.680 ± 6.800); and the score for the submission dimension was (13.159 ± 4.674). The mean risk perception score was 39.949 ± 11.869. The structural equation model showed that risk perception had a negative role in facing (P < 0.001), and a positive role in avoidance, submission, and fertility concerns (P < 0.001). Avoidance and submission had positive effects on fertility concerns (P < 0.05), while facing had negative effects on fertility concerns (P < 0.05). Medical coping was a mediating variable between risk perception and fertility concerns. Fertility anxiety and risk perception were at a medium level among the cancer survivors assessed, with the participants more inclined to adopt a confrontational coping style. Medical coping can modulate the interaction between risk perception and fertility concerns. Cancer Fertility anxiety Medical coping Risk perception Structural equation model Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction Reports from 2020 Global Cancer Statistics state that breast cancer and cervical cancer rank first in the incidence of female cancers worldwide and are also the main causes of death. They are marked by a high incidence and survival rate, and a young demographic trend [ 1 – 2 ]. Although cancer prevention and treatment methods are becoming increasingly mature over time, survivors still face economic pressure, the risk of cancer recurrence [ 3 ], fertility concerns [ 4 ], interpersonal tension [ 5 ], and a host of other associated problems. The rate for fertility concerns in cancer patients is as high as 57% [ 6 ]. This may be related to a lack of effective communication between doctors and patients, a lack of correct reproductive judgment, delayed participation in treatment decisions, and negative cognition of reproductive status [ 7 – 8 ]. The complexity of the medical process and patients’ uncertainty regarding their own conditions make risk perception ubiquitous among cancer patients and survivors alike, and even more prevalent than the actual risk of the disease [ 9 ]. Risk perception refers to individuals’ interoception, affect, and cognitive abilities regarding the various objective risks that exist in the outside world. This process emphasises the impact of an individual’s intuitive inferences and interoception on their perception [ 10 ]. Slovic [ 11 ] believes that risk perception is the objective risk generated by an individual's subjective processing of the outside world, which may be exaggerated, reduced, or even ignored. Even if the objective risk is very high, once the individual does not perceive it, it will not affect any of their subsequent activity. Cox [ 12 ] believes that individual behaviour has a corresponding goal and that risk perception occurs when individual behaviour is not aligned with the achievement of that goal. Cunningham [ 13 ] believes that the level of risk perception is affected by the uncertainty and consequences of behaviours. Therefore, we believe that individual risk perception affects individual cognition and attitude by influencing individual psychology, and thus has a hugely significant impact on individual behaviour. Several previous studies have found that risk perception is inversely associated with the dimensions of facing diseases and positively correlated with the dimensions of submission and avoidance [ 14 ]. Medical coping refers to the conscious psychological strategies and behavioural responses produced by patients in the process of facing diseases. It is a relatively stable behaviour and is thought of as individuals’ response to sudden medical stress [ 15 – 16 ]. Studies have shown that although individual coping styles cannot effectively improve patients’ clinical symptoms, they greatly impact individual psychology; higher positive coping levels are associated with lower severity of the adverse consequences of stressful events [ 17 ]. Facing is a positive and effective coping attitude adopted by patients toward stressful events such as adversity. Avoidance and submission are a kind of compromise or negative reaction that will cause patients to experience negative emotions and escape psychology, and aggravate their anxiety and depression [ 18 – 21 ]. According to Zhang, the submission dimension of medical coping is positively correlated with fertility concerns, while the facing dimension is negatively correlated [ 22 ]. Fertility anxiety refers to a patient's concern about reproductive health and capacity, self-health, offspring's health, and parenting, including child-rearing and care. Logan et al.’s [ 23 ] study posits that fertility concerns are experienced in the process of cancer treatment from diagnosis to recovery, and psychological distress concerning fertility is widespread and persistent among cancer survivors. Subfertility in cancer survivors of reproductive age can contribute to psychological distress and mental health disorders, which can lower quality of life [ 24 ]. Based on the above literature review and the stress coping theory, as shown in Fig. 1 , the following hypothesis is proposed: cancer survivors’ risk perception may interact with fertility concerns, and risk perception may directly or indirectly influence fertility concerns in cancer survivors through medical coping, as shown in Table 1 . A structural equation model was used to explore the interaction path and relationship between risk perception mediated by medical coping as a mediating variable and reproductive anxiety. The aim of this study is to enrich the existing research regarding the psychological elements affecting the mechanism of reproductive anxiety in cancer survivors. 2. Objectives and methods 2.1. Research Goal The research sample consisted of cancer survivors of childbearing age admitted to a tertiary hospital in Hengyang City, China. A convenience sampling method was used to select participants from September 2022 to March 2023. Inclusion criteria specified patients who (1) were diagnosed by histopathology as having had cancer for 1 year or more; (2) were female and aged 18–49 years; (3) were mentally normal, with an established level of reading comprehension ability; and (4) had provided informed consent and were able to cooperate. Exclusion criteria identified patients who (1) had a history of psychiatric disorders or mental illness; (2) were unaware of their own situation; and (3) were already deceased. This study was reviewed by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital University of South China (no. 4304070901517). The average age of the 516 cancer survivors was (33.75 ± 5.49) years. Regarding marital status: 446 of the study participants were married, 60 were unmarried, and 10 were divorced or widowed. 70 of the participants had 0 children, 156 had 1 child, 260 had 2 children, and 30 had 3 children. The types of cancer recorded among the study participants were: cervical cancer, 58 cases; endometrial cancer, 27 cases; ovarian cancer, 88 cases; thyroid cancer, 242 cases; breast cancer, 101 cases. In terms of the course of the disease: 334 participants had had cancer for 1 to 3 years, 98 for 3 to 5 years, and 84 for 5 years or more. In terms of the payment type used for medical expenses: 30 of the patients were self-funded, 264 relied on social medical insurance, and 110 relied on employee medical insurance. 2.2. Methods 2.2.1. Research tools 2.2.1.1. General information questionnaire Information requested in this questionnaire included age (in years), course of disease (in years), marital status, being with or without children, number of children, education level, living status, cancer type, working status, residence location, personal monthly income (yuan), type of medical expenses payment, type of care, type of treatment; radiotherapy or chemotherapy, whether the cancer had recurred, whether the cancer had metastasised, and whether the respondent possessed a desire to reproduce. 2.2.1.2 Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC). The scale employed in this study was formulated by Gorman et al. [ 25 ] and subsequently adapted into a Chinese version by Qiao [ 26 ]. This scale works to evaluate the reproductive concerns of female patients and encompasses 6 dimensions: spouse’s knowledge (3 items), pregnancy ability (3 items), pregnancy preparation ability (3 items), infertility acceptance (3 items), self-health (3 items), and child health (3 items), for a total of 18 items. The scale employs a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly ‘disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’, respectively, with a corresponding 1–5 points. Under each dimension, a score of ≥ 3 points for any item indicates that the patient has a high level of reproductive concerns. The Cronbach's α coefficient of the scale in this study was 0.917. 2.2.1.3 Medical Coping Modes Questionnaire (MCMQ). Shen and Jiang translated and revised this scale [ 27 ] to contain 3 dimensions, which are facing, avoidance, and submission. Higher scores suggested a greater inclination to adopt the corresponding coping mode. The MCMQ displayed acceptable internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.749. 2.2.1.4. Risk perception. This scale was compiled by Fang [ 28 ] and incorporates three dimensions: economic risk (four items), physical diagnosis and treatment risk (five items), and social psychological risk (three items). The scale consists of 12 items. Higher scores reflect a higher degree of risk perception. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale in this study was 0.927. 2.2.2. Survey methods Two highly experienced nurses from the hospital’s obstetrics and gynaecology department were asked to take on the role of investigators for this study. Before commencing the investigation, the nurses were provided with training for their role of investigators and appropriate assessments were conducted to ensure their preparedness. The nurses were made responsible for carefully selecting appropriate research participants. Upon obtaining informed consent from the research participants, the nurses then distributed the relevant questionnaires and provided unified instructions. The questionnaires were completed on site by the participants, collected immediately, and then reviewed to identify any missing or incomplete responses. Sample size = [max(number of dimensions)×(15–20)]×[1+(15%-20%)]. The maximum dimension was set to six, and 104–144 samples were calculated. To compensate for the potential loss of effective questionnaires, an additional 20% increase was required, bringing the total required sample size to 173 participants. Of the 552 questionnaires distributed, 516 were effectively recovered, with an effective recovery rate of 93.48%. 2.2.3. Statistical Methods SPSS18.0 statistical software package was performed for all analyses. Count data were presented using frequencies and percentages, and the characterization of measurement data was performed using mean values and standard deviations. Using Pearson correlation analysis, this study investigated the correlation between reproductive concerns, medical coping modes, and risk perception in cancer survivors of childbearing age. AMOS26.0 software was used to set up the model and investigate the mediating effect among these three variables, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. 3. Results 3.1. Status and relevance of fertility concerns in cancer survivors and medical coping, risk perception The fertility anxiety scores of cancer survivors were (63.227±12.664); the scores of the dimensions of facing were (21.114±6.478); the avoidance dimension score was (16.680±6.800); and the submission dimension score was (13.159±4.674). The risk perception score was (39.949±11.869), with the correlation between fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception shown in Table 1. 3.2 Construction of structural equation models for fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception of cancer survivors A structural equation model was constructed based on the medical coping, fertility concerns, and risk perception of the study participants, with the path coefficient of the model fitted using the maximum likelihood method. The operational results of the initial structural equation model are shown in Figure 2. The indicators of fit degree are as follows: c²/df=5.801, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.079, goodness-of-fit index (GFI)=0.906, comparison of fit indexes (CFI)=0.872, incremental fit index (IFI)=0.873, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)=0.830, and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)=0.853. According to the fitting standards, the RMSEA and c²/df failed to meet the fitting degree, which was corrected. The revised model is shown in Figure 3, where c²/df=3.930 (< 5); RMSEA=0.075 ( 0.8). The results of the path coefficients for fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception among cancer survivors are shown in Table 2. Risk perception had a negative response to facing (β=-0.203, P < 0.001), and a positive response to avoidance, submission, and fertility concerns (β=0.227, β=0.274, β=0.266; P < 0.001); avoidance and submission had positive responses to fertility anxiety (β=0.107, β=0.304; P < 0.05), while facing had a negative response to fertility anxiety (β=-0.106, P < 0.05). To explore the mediating effect between paths, the bootstrapping technique was used with 5000 samples; the standard for confidence intervals was 95%, and the deviation correction method was used for testing. The upper and lower intervals of risk perception → facing→ fertility concerns mediating path, risk perception → avoidance → fertility concerns mediating path, risk perception → submission → fertility concerns mediating path did not contain 0, and P < 0.001, so the mediation effect was established. The results are shown in Table 3. 4. Discussion 4.1 Analysis of fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception among cancer survivors In the present study, the aggregate score of fertility anxiety among cancer survivors was (63.227 ± 12.664), and was generally at a moderate level. These results are similar to those obtained in other comparable domestic studies [ 29 – 31 ]. The reasons for these similarities in results may be as follows: (1) the location of the cancers that form the study’s research objective directly involve the reproductive system, causing irreversible damage to it and creating subsequent fertility problems. (2) The median age of the population studied was (33.75 ± 5.49) years old, which is the golden age for reproduction and the main point of responsibility for taking care of the family and raising children. Influenced by traditional ideas, people regard their children as the continuation of their lives, and the infertility caused by cancer can create a strong psychological conflict with respect to their psyche. (3) Patients with gynaecological malignant cancer face the risk of cancer recurrence and a shortened life cycle, which creates a degree of uncertainty with regard to their ability to establish a healthy career, provide social support, and maintain family relationships. (4) In addition to long-term medical treatment, cancer survivors with reproductive needs also have to deal with follow-up fertility problems. Poor information channels and insufficient effective communication between doctors and patients will also inevitably increase the risk of psychological distress. (5) The heritability of cancer and the toxicity of the drugs involved in the treatment process make most survivors worry that the disease will be passed on to future generations and will affect the future health of their children. The scores for the relevant dimensions in this study were (21.114 ± 6.478) for medical coping, (16.680 ± 6.800) for avoidance, and (13.159 ± 4.674) for submission, all of which were higher than the national norm [ 27 ], a finding that is similar to the results previously obtained by Ling [ 32 ]. This shows that the participants in this study were more inclined to adopt the coping style of facing when dealing with the stressful event of cancer, which can effectively guide the patients to correct their attitude, relieve pressure, and contribute to their physical and mental health. The reasons may be as follows: (1) most of the participants in this study had a strong marital status, a good husband-and-wife relationship, and warm family atmosphere, all of which are conducive to guiding patients to adopt positive and appropriate coping styles, and which help to alleviate the physical and mental impact of fear of recurrence. (2) In addition, most of the study participants had more than one child and faced less pressure to have and raise children. This is coupled with the fact that with the increasing maturity of medical technology, patients have more confidence in their treatment outcomes. Patients should be encouraged to actively express negative emotions they are experiencing to medical personnel, family members, and fellow patients as a positive means of coping, allowing them to actively adjust negative emotions to enhance their psychological adaptation level. As a category of psychology, risk perception is the attitude, cognition, and view generated by an individual when facing a stressful event, which emphasises the impact of stressful events on an individual's intuitive judgment and subjective feelings. The scores for each dimension of risk perception assessed in this study from high to low were physical risk (16.713 ± 5.842), economic risk (13.173 ± 4.587), and social psychological risk (10.062 ± 3.540). The total score of risk perception was (39.949 ± 11.869), which was at the medium level, slightly higher than the results of foreign studies [ 33 – 34 ]. The likely reasons for this are as follows: (1) in the context of global informatisation, people have an increasing number of channels through which to obtain medical-related information, while their ability to discriminate information is limited. This is coupled with media exaggeration, meaning the lower the trust in the medical system, the greater the risk perception of patients. (2) Compared with economically developed countries, China's medical insurance system remains imperfect. The personal medical burden is still relatively high and many cancer patients spend their lifetime family income on disease treatment, while also fearing that the treatment will ultimately prove unsuccessful. The health belief model points out that, based on individual cognition and the surrounding environment, there will be differences in the perception level of disease risk. Even the real situation will often prove inconsistent with the actual risk of disease, which may cause the disease risk itself to be over or underestimated, leading to the deviation of individual behaviour [ 35 – 36 ]. Those who overestimate the risk of disease will be left in a chronic stress state for an extended period and will experience anxiety, depression, and other negative emotions that seriously damage their physical and mental health. However, underestimation of risk causes patients to ignore potential risks and react negatively, which is not conducive to follow-up monitoring and treatment of the disease [ 37 – 39 ]. Therefore, in clinical work, while also focusing on improving medical services and technology, medical staff should seek to strengthen disease knowledge education for patients, improve patients' cognitive levels, and promote the improvement of doctor-patient trust mechanisms. Mass media should seek to strengthen its degree of professional quality, objectivity, and truth with regard to reporting and publicity, and correctly guide the direction of public opinion. The government should increase financial input, improve the reimbursement system of social medical insurance, and promote and establish a reasonable and orderly hierarchical diagnosis and treatment model. Hospitals should provide reasonable diagnoses and treatments without excessive medical treatment, thus reducing patients' perceived economic risks. 4.2 Analysis of the interaction between reproductive anxiety and risk perception in medical coping of cancer survivors The structural equation model constructed using the three variables included in this study: medical coping, risk perception, and fertility concerns is well-fitted. This verifies the hypothesis proposed in the literature analysis section above that risk perception may directly or indirectly influence fertility concerns in cancer survivors through medical coping. The output of the structural equation model revealed that: (1) the risk perception of cancer survivors had a favourable predictive effect on fertility anxiety; (2) risk perception was inversely associated with medical coping but was positively correlated with avoidance and submission; and (3) risk perception can not only directly affect fertility anxiety but also indirectly affect the fertility anxiety level of cancer survivors through the dimensions of facing, avoidance, and submission. This suggests that cancer patients can be effectively assisted in obtaining correct cancer risk information, can take the initiative to participate in the medical decision-making process, and can develop correct, reasonable coping strategies when facing risks, that can help to reduce their level of anxiety and depression. A negative response to cancer risk negatively affects individual health and hinders the implementation of cancer prevention and control measures [ 40 ]. Medical coping [ 41 – 42 ] is the coping style adopted by individuals when they encounter stressful events, such as adversity. It is a decisive and protective intermediate variable for psychological stress and health adaptation that can regulate patients’ adoption of different coping strategies during stressful life events. Different coping strategies will impact a patient’s state of physical and cognitive well-being to varying degrees, thus affecting the treatment and rehabilitation of the disease. Relevant studies have shown that although positive coping styles cannot completely relieve the discomfort of cancer survivors, they can significantly improve their psychological status [ 31 , 43 ]. Negative coping styles will encourage patients to choose escape psychology, which will aggravate anxiety and depression and have a serious adverse impact on individual disease prognosis and health behaviour [ 44 – 45 ]. Therefore, it is desirable to formulate rational coping strategies to strengthen the enjoyment of the quality of life of cancer survivors. 5. Conclusion Several factors affect fertility anxiety. Through a structural equation model, this study found that risk perception has a direct effect on cancer survivors’ fertility anxiety and that medical coping, as an intermediary variable between risk perception and fertility anxiety, can regulate the interaction between them. The findings of this study were that: (1) the path coefficients among the three variables assessed were not high. This analysis may be related to the subjective variables measured by the questionnaire; other important variables, such as emotional states (including anxiety and depression), cancer-related fatigue, and social support, were not considered in this modelling study. The prospective study should be conducted with a view to further supplement other important psychosocial factors affecting the fertility concerns of cancer survivors according to this theoretical framework. Additional sample sizes should also be made available, and the next verification of these research findings should be jointly carried out across multiple locations. (2) As a cross-sectional survey, this study only discussed the status quo mechanisms of cancer survivors' risk perceptions, medical coping, and fertility anxiety. Because these three factors are dynamically changing and developing, further longitudinal studies are required to explore their future development paths. (3) In addition, an evidence-based approach should be considered to explore validated intervention strategies to improve the degree of fertility anxiety in cancer survivors, pursue the best available evidence, and apply it in clinical care settings to ultimately benefit patients. Declarations 1.Ethics approval and consent to participate This study has been approved by The First Affiliated Hospital University of South China Ethics Committee (No.4304070901517). All participants signed informed consent prior to the enrollment of this study. All procedures performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. 2.Consent for publication Not Applicable. 3.Availability of data and materials The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. 4.Competing interests The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest. 5.Funding This study was supported by The Health Commission of Hunan Province (NO.202214034799) 6.Authors' contributions Wu Xiaoqin: Conceptualization, Methodology. Peng Yejuan and Xiong Yuying: Data collection. Wu Xiaoqin Writing-Original draft preparation. Xun Rende:Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Ou Yan and Tong Mei: Data analyses. Zhou Yanhui: Supervision. 7.Acknowledgements This study was supported by The Affiliated Hospital of University of South China and The Health Commission of Hunan Province.We thank all the study participants for volunteering to participate in this study. References Liu ZC, Li ZX, Zhang Y, Zhou T, Zhang J, You W, et al. Interpretation on the report of Global Cancer Statistics 2020. J Multidiscip Cancer Manag. 2021;7:1–14. https://doi.org/10.12151/jmcm.2021.02-01 . Qiu J, Tang L, Li P, Fu J. An investigation into the reproductive concerns of young women with breast cancer. Asia-Pacific J Oncol Nurs. 2022;9:100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APJON.2022.03.007 . Vanstone RN, Fergus K, Ladhani NNN, Warner E. Reproductive concerns and fear of cancer recurrence: a qualitative study of women’s experiences of the perinatal period after cancer. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:738. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12884-021-04208-3 . Gorman JR, Drizin JH, Smith E, Flores-Sanchez Y, Harvey SM. Patient-centered communication to address young adult breast cancer survivors’ reproductive and sexual health concerns. Health Commun. 2021;36:1743–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794550 . Benedict C, Nieh JL, Hahn AL, McCready A, Diefenbach M, Ford JS. Looking at future cancer survivors, give them a roadmap: addressing fertility and family-building topics in post-treatment cancer survivorship care. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29:2203–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00520-020-05731-3 . Partridge AH, Gelber S, Peppercorn J, Sampson E, Knudsen K, Laufer M, Rosenberg R, Przypyszny M, Rein A, Winer EP. Web-Based Survey of Fertility Issues in Young Women With Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(20):4174–83. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.01.159 . Ruggeri M, Pagan E, Bagnardi V, Bianco N, Gallerani E, Buser K, Giordano M, Gianni L, Rabaglio M, Freschi A, Cretella E, Clerico M, Farolfi A, Simoncini E, Ciccarese M, Rauch D, Ramello M, Glaus A, Berardi R, Pellanda AF. Fertility concerns, preservation strategies and quality of life in young women with breast cancer: Baseline results from an ongoing prospective cohort study in selected European Centers. Breast. 2019;47(0960–9776):85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.07.001 . Halliday LE, Boughton MA. Exploring the concept of uncertain fertility, reproduction and motherhood after cancer in young adult women. Nurs Inq. 2011;18(2):135–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2011.00532.x . Hajian-Tilaki K, Nikpour M. Accuracy of self-perceived risk perception of breast cancer development in Iranian women. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21:93. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12905-021-01238-Z . Goulding L, Furze G, Birks Y. Randomized controlled trials of interventions to change maladaptive illness beliefs in people with coronary heart disease: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(5):946–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05306.x . Slovic P. The perception of risk. Dr: Earthscan From Routledge; 2014. Cox DF, Rich SU. Perceived Risk and Consumer Decision-Making—The Case of Telephone Shopping. J Mark Res. 1964;1(4):32–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224376400100405 . Blankertz DF, Cox DF. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. J Mark Res. 1969;6(1):110. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150012 . Yang Y. The relationship between risk perception and social support psychological resilience and medical coping in patients with unstable angina pectoris [MSc thesis]. Henan: Henan University; 2021. Kalbfleisch M, Cyr A, Gregorio N, Nyhof-Young J. Investigating coping strategies and social support among Canadian melanoma patients: A survey approach. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2015;25(2):60–5. https://doi.org/10.5737/236880762516065 . Compas BE. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychol Bull. 1987;101(3):393–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.3.393 . Denollet J, Martens EJ, Nyklíček I, Conraads VM, de Gelder B. Clinical events in coronary patients who report low distress: Adverse effect of repressive coping. Health Psychol. 2008;27(3):302–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.302 . Feifel H, Strack S, Nagy VT. Coping strategies and associated features of medically ill patients. Psychosom Med. 1987;49(6):616–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-198711000-00007 . Lim J, Shon E, Paek M, Daly B. The dyadic effects of coping and resilience on psychological distress for cancer survivor couples. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(12):3209–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2334-9 . Friedberg A, Malefakis D. Resilience, Trauma, and Coping. Psychodynamic Psychiatry. 2018;46(1):81–113. https://doi.org/10.1521/pdps.2018.46.1.81 . Lazzarotto S, Martin F, Saint-Laurent A, Hamidou Z, Aghababian V, Auquier P, Baumstarck K. Coping with age-related hearing loss: patient-caregiver dyad effects on quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019c;17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1161-6 . Zhang HW. Study on the Status and Influencing Factors of Reproductive Concerns in Breast Cancer Patients of Childbearing Period [MSc thesis]. North China University of Science and Technology; 2022. Logan S, Perz J, Ussher JM, Peate M, Anazodo A. Systematic review of fertility-related psychological distress in cancer patients: Informing on an improved model of care. Psycho-oncology. 2018;28(1):22–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4927 . Wang Y, Logan S, Stern K, Wakefield CE, Cohn RJ, Agresta F, Jayasinghe Y, Deans R, Segelov E, McLachlan RI, Gerstl B, Sullivan E, Ledger WE, Anazodo A. Supportive oncofertility care, psychological health and reproductive concerns: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer. 2019;28(2):809–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04883-1 . Gorman JR, Drizin JH, Smith E, Flores-Sanchez Y, Harvey SM. Patient-centered communication to address young adult breast cancer survivors’ reproductive and sexual health concerns. Health Commun. 2021;36:1743–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794550 . Qiao T. Development and preliminary application of the Chinese version of the reproductive concerns after cancer scale [MSc thesis]. Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou University; 2017. Shen XH, Jiang QJ. Report on application of Chinese version of MCMQ in 701 patients. Chin J Behav Med Sci. 2000;9(1):18–20. Fang L. The study of questionnaire construction of risk perception and it's influence factors for common chronic inpatients [MSc thesis]. Xi'an: Fourth Military Medical University; 2015. Chen LX, Hou YX, Yu LJ. Reproductive Concerns of Young Married Female Patients with Lung Cancer and Its Influence Factors: A 239-case. Study J Nurs. 2020;27:57–60. Qian Z, Yang XT, Lin JM. Meta integration of reproductive concerns experience in cancer patients. Study J Nurs. 2023;30:55–60. Zhang Y, Hu DY, Liu YL. et.a. The mediating role of medical coping and negative emotions in the relationship between family APGAR and psychological resilience of gynecologic oncology patients. J Nurs Sci. 2023;38:89–92. Lin JM, Chen ML, Cai F. Relationship among post-traumatic growth, coping style and fear of cancer recurrence in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherap. J Clin Nurs. 2021;20:32–5. Figueiras MJ, Neto DD, Marôco J. Understanding the relationship between illness perceptions of breast cancer and perceived risk in a sample of U.A.E. female university students: the role of comparative risk. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22:193. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12905-022-01771-5 . Paalosalo-Harris K, Skirton H. Mixed method systematic review: the relationship between breast cancer risk perception and health-protective behaviour in women with family history of breast cancer. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73:760–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/JAN.13158 . Qin C, Wang R, Tao L, Liu M, Liu J. Association between risk perception and acceptance for a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine to children among child caregivers in China. Front Public Health. 2022;10:834572. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPUBH.2022.834572 . Chung CW, Lee SJ. Estimated risks and optimistic self-perception of breast cancer risk in Korean women. Appl Nurs Res. 2013;26:180–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APNR.2013.06.001 . Boehm JK, Chen Y, Qureshi F, Soo J, Umukoro P, Hernandez R, Lloyd-Jones D, Kubzansky LD. Positive emotions and favorable cardiovascular health: A 20-year longitudinal study. Prev Med. 2020;136(0091–7435):106103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106103 . Mu Q, Hanson L, Hoelzle J, Fehring RJ. Young women's knowledge about fertility and their fertility health risk factors. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing. Volume 48. JOGNN; 2019. pp. 153–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOGN.2018.12.009 . Tsai E, Robertson MC, Lyons EJ, Swartz MC, Basen-Engquist K. Physical activity and exercise self-regulation in cancer survivors: A qualitative study. Psycho-oncology. 2018;27:563–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/PON.4519 . Yu l. A dissertation submitted to Huazhong University of Science and Technology for the Degree for Master of Library and Information Studies [MSc thesis]. Huazhong University of Science&Technology; 2021. Qiu HZ, Liang RJ. Stress and psychological crisis intervention, 2008. Cavanagh L, Obasi EM. The Moderating Role of Coping Style on Chronic Stress Exposure and Cardiovascular Reactivity Among African American Emerging Adults. Prev Sci. 2020;1389–4986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01141-3 . Hong J, Wei Z, Wang W. Preoperative psychological distress, coping and quality of life in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed gastric cancer. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(17–18):2439–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12816 . Chabowski M, Jankowska-Polanska B, Lomper K, Janczak D. The effect of coping strategy on quality of life in patients with NSCLC. Cancer Manage Res. 2018;10(1179–1322):4085–93. https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s175210 . He Y, Jian H, Yan M, Zhu J, Li G, Lou VWQ, Chen J. Coping, mood and health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional study in Chinese patients with advanced lung cancer. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e023672. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023672 . Tables Table 1 Fertility concerns and medical coping, risk perception and correlation among cancer survivors（N=516） Fertility concerns Medical coping Risk perception Facing Avoidance Submission Fertility concerns 1 Facing -0.281** 1 Avoidance 0.302** -0.446** 1 Submission 0.411** -0.360** 0.443** 1 Risk perception 0.298** -0.153** 0.165** 0.211** 1 Mean 63.227 21.114 16.680 13.159 39.949 Standard Deviation 12.664 6.478 6.800 4.674 11.869 note：*：P＜0.05。 Table 2 Path coefficient between fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors Regression pathway β b S.E. C.R. P Facing<---risk perception -0.203 -0.486 0.118 -4.133 *** Avoidance<---risk perception 0.227 0.57 0.124 4.611 *** Submission<---risk perception 0.274 0.472 0.085 5.56 *** Fertility concerns<---Avoidance 0.107 0.033 0.015 2.19 0.029 Fertility concerns<---submission 0.304 0.134 0.021 6.365 *** Fertility concerns<---risk perception 0.266 0.202 0.042 4.809 *** Fertility concerns<---facing -0.106 -0.034 0.015 -2.176 0.03 note：b: Non-normalised coefficient；β：Normalised factor coefficient；***，P＜0.001 Table 3 Mediating effects of fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception among cancer survivors Mediating pathway Effect size SE 95% lower limit 95% upper limit P Risk perception→facing→fertility concerns 0.016 0.009 0.003 0.039 0.016 Risk Perception→avoidance→fertility concerns 0.019 0.010 0.002 0.043 0.031 Risk perception→submission→fertility concerns 0.063 0.016 0.036 0.101 0.000 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4108249","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":283904280,"identity":"5957ae2e-894a-4ac1-8199-186787302bd4","order_by":0,"name":"Xiaoqin Wu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiaoqin","middleName":"","lastName":"Wu","suffix":""},{"id":283904283,"identity":"47915f33-ab58-46be-a8ca-6b0c1d321b51","order_by":1,"name":"Yan Ou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yan","middleName":"","lastName":"Ou","suffix":""},{"id":283904285,"identity":"124903cf-4d9c-4457-b927-1469cb782a06","order_by":2,"name":"Yejuan Peng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yejuan","middleName":"","lastName":"Peng","suffix":""},{"id":283904286,"identity":"964eda53-6188-4b28-8727-4b72ac9c29f9","order_by":3,"name":"Yuying Xiong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuying","middleName":"","lastName":"Xiong","suffix":""},{"id":283904288,"identity":"23d5a381-bbf5-4cd3-a880-9f53b1f56d5a","order_by":4,"name":"Mei Tong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mei","middleName":"","lastName":"Tong","suffix":""},{"id":283904290,"identity":"a9f4188a-52c3-4f77-ad33-42547ae019db","order_by":5,"name":"Yanhui Zhou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South China","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yanhui","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhou","suffix":""},{"id":283904292,"identity":"b4b0740c-0e25-4ad2-9078-b23fcbc1bfc9","order_by":6,"name":"Rende Xun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rende","middleName":"","lastName":"Xun","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-03-15 13:31:48","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4108249/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4108249/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":53757131,"identity":"3765d532-559d-49ec-83e5-2e7be187937a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-29 19:06:34","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":50549,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTheoretical framework\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4108249/v1/9f1f6ddf489da3d765c0d5f4.png"},{"id":53757132,"identity":"272d4b2e-929c-4e00-b6fd-bbc7e8c0a37f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-29 19:06:34","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStructural equation model maps of fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors (initialised)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4108249/v1/cf0e9c852d6bed8950b22053.png"},{"id":53758390,"identity":"e16e7bbd-90e7-46b4-bc66-e42ff3578139","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-29 19:14:34","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":66978,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStructural equation model of fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors (revised)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4108249/v1/b6bac2aa7255b09f514afc4f.png"},{"id":76746705,"identity":"b6b96889-7f12-4596-b838-6b2a49109b8c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-20 09:09:05","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1005596,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4108249/v1/145eed05-1071-4e74-b6e1-53580bcb6c2f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Constructing a structural equation model of fertility anxiety, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eReports from 2020 Global Cancer Statistics state that breast cancer and cervical cancer rank first in the incidence of female cancers worldwide and are also the main causes of death. They are marked by a high incidence and survival rate, and a young demographic trend [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Although cancer prevention and treatment methods are becoming increasingly mature over time, survivors still face economic pressure, the risk of cancer recurrence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], fertility concerns [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], interpersonal tension [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e], and a host of other associated problems. The rate for fertility concerns in cancer patients is as high as 57% [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. This may be related to a lack of effective communication between doctors and patients, a lack of correct reproductive judgment, delayed participation in treatment decisions, and negative cognition of reproductive status [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. The complexity of the medical process and patients\u0026rsquo; uncertainty regarding their own conditions make risk perception ubiquitous among cancer patients and survivors alike, and even more prevalent than the actual risk of the disease [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Risk perception refers to individuals\u0026rsquo; interoception, affect, and cognitive abilities regarding the various objective risks that exist in the outside world. This process emphasises the impact of an individual\u0026rsquo;s intuitive inferences and interoception on their perception [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Slovic [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] believes that risk perception is the objective risk generated by an individual's subjective processing of the outside world, which may be exaggerated, reduced, or even ignored. Even if the objective risk is very high, once the individual does not perceive it, it will not affect any of their subsequent activity. Cox [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] believes that individual behaviour has a corresponding goal and that risk perception occurs when individual behaviour is not aligned with the achievement of that goal. Cunningham [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] believes that the level of risk perception is affected by the uncertainty and consequences of behaviours. Therefore, we believe that individual risk perception affects individual cognition and attitude by influencing individual psychology, and thus has a hugely significant impact on individual behaviour.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral previous studies have found that risk perception is inversely associated with the dimensions of facing diseases and positively correlated with the dimensions of submission and avoidance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Medical coping refers to the conscious psychological strategies and behavioural responses produced by patients in the process of facing diseases. It is a relatively stable behaviour and is thought of as individuals\u0026rsquo; response to sudden medical stress [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Studies have shown that although individual coping styles cannot effectively improve patients\u0026rsquo; clinical symptoms, they greatly impact individual psychology; higher positive coping levels are associated with lower severity of the adverse consequences of stressful events [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Facing is a positive and effective coping attitude adopted by patients toward stressful events such as adversity. Avoidance and submission are a kind of compromise or negative reaction that will cause patients to experience negative emotions and escape psychology, and aggravate their anxiety and depression [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR19 CR20\" citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Zhang, the submission dimension of medical coping is positively correlated with fertility concerns, while the facing dimension is negatively correlated [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Fertility anxiety refers to a patient's concern about reproductive health and capacity, self-health, offspring's health, and parenting, including child-rearing and care. Logan et al.\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] study posits that fertility concerns are experienced in the process of cancer treatment from diagnosis to recovery, and psychological distress concerning fertility is widespread and persistent among cancer survivors. Subfertility in cancer survivors of reproductive age can contribute to psychological distress and mental health disorders, which can lower quality of life [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the above literature review and the stress coping theory, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the following hypothesis is proposed: cancer survivors\u0026rsquo; risk perception may interact with fertility concerns, and risk perception may directly or indirectly influence fertility concerns in cancer survivors through medical coping, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. A structural equation model was used to explore the interaction path and relationship between risk perception mediated by medical coping as a mediating variable and reproductive anxiety. The aim of this study is to enrich the existing research regarding the psychological elements affecting the mechanism of reproductive anxiety in cancer survivors.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"2. Objectives and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Research Goal\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research sample consisted of cancer survivors of childbearing age admitted to a tertiary hospital in Hengyang City, China. A convenience sampling method was used to select participants from September 2022 to March 2023. Inclusion criteria specified patients who (1) were diagnosed by histopathology as having had cancer for 1 year or more; (2) were female and aged 18\u0026ndash;49 years; (3) were mentally normal, with an established level of reading comprehension ability; and (4) had provided informed consent and were able to cooperate. Exclusion criteria identified patients who (1) had a history of psychiatric disorders or mental illness; (2) were unaware of their own situation; and (3) were already deceased. This study was reviewed by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital University of South China (no. 4304070901517). The average age of the 516 cancer survivors was (33.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.49) years. Regarding marital status: 446 of the study participants were married, 60 were unmarried, and 10 were divorced or widowed. 70 of the participants had 0 children, 156 had 1 child, 260 had 2 children, and 30 had 3 children. The types of cancer recorded among the study participants were: cervical cancer, 58 cases; endometrial cancer, 27 cases; ovarian cancer, 88 cases; thyroid cancer, 242 cases; breast cancer, 101 cases. In terms of the course of the disease: 334 participants had had cancer for 1 to 3 years, 98 for 3 to 5 years, and 84 for 5 years or more. In terms of the payment type used for medical expenses: 30 of the patients were self-funded, 264 relied on social medical insurance, and 110 relied on employee medical insurance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1. Research tools\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1.1. General information questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformation requested in this questionnaire included age (in years), course of disease (in years), marital status, being with or without children, number of children, education level, living status, cancer type, working status, residence location, personal monthly income (yuan), type of medical expenses payment, type of care, type of treatment; radiotherapy or chemotherapy, whether the cancer had recurred, whether the cancer had metastasised, and whether the respondent possessed a desire to reproduce.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1.2 Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC).\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scale employed in this study was formulated by Gorman et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] and subsequently adapted into a Chinese version by Qiao [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. This scale works to evaluate the reproductive concerns of female patients and encompasses 6 dimensions: spouse\u0026rsquo;s knowledge (3 items), pregnancy ability (3 items), pregnancy preparation ability (3 items), infertility acceptance (3 items), self-health (3 items), and child health (3 items), for a total of 18 items. The scale employs a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly \u0026lsquo;disagree\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;strongly agree\u0026rsquo;, respectively, with a corresponding 1\u0026ndash;5 points. Under each dimension, a score of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;3 points for any item indicates that the patient has a high level of reproductive concerns. The Cronbach's α coefficient of the scale in this study was 0.917.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1.3 Medical Coping Modes Questionnaire (MCMQ).\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eShen and Jiang translated and revised this scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] to contain 3 dimensions, which are facing, avoidance, and submission. Higher scores suggested a greater inclination to adopt the corresponding coping mode. The MCMQ displayed acceptable internal consistency, with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α of 0.749.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1.4. Risk perception.\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scale was compiled by Fang [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] and incorporates three dimensions: economic risk (four items), physical diagnosis and treatment risk (five items), and social psychological risk (three items). The scale consists of 12 items. Higher scores reflect a higher degree of risk perception. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α coefficient of the scale in this study was 0.927.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2. Survey methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo highly experienced nurses from the hospital\u0026rsquo;s obstetrics and gynaecology department were asked to take on the role of investigators for this study. Before commencing the investigation, the nurses were provided with training for their role of investigators and appropriate assessments were conducted to ensure their preparedness. The nurses were made responsible for carefully selecting appropriate research participants. Upon obtaining informed consent from the research participants, the nurses then distributed the relevant questionnaires and provided unified instructions. The questionnaires were completed on site by the participants, collected immediately, and then reviewed to identify any missing or incomplete responses. Sample size = [max(number of dimensions)\u0026times;(15\u0026ndash;20)]\u0026times;[1+(15%-20%)]. The maximum dimension was set to six, and 104\u0026ndash;144 samples were calculated. To compensate for the potential loss of effective questionnaires, an additional 20% increase was required, bringing the total required sample size to 173 participants. Of the 552 questionnaires distributed, 516 were effectively recovered, with an effective recovery rate of 93.48%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.3. Statistical Methods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSPSS18.0 statistical software package was performed for all analyses. Count data were presented using frequencies and percentages, and the characterization of measurement data was performed using mean values and standard deviations. Using Pearson correlation analysis, this study investigated the correlation between reproductive concerns, medical coping modes, and risk perception in cancer survivors of childbearing age. AMOS26.0 software was used to set up the model and investigate the mediating effect among these three variables, with P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 considered statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.1. Status and relevance of fertility concerns in cancer survivors and medical coping, risk perception\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fertility anxiety scores of cancer survivors were (63.227\u0026plusmn;12.664); the scores of the dimensions of facing were (21.114\u0026plusmn;6.478); the avoidance dimension score was (16.680\u0026plusmn;6.800); and the\u0026nbsp;submission\u0026nbsp;dimension score was (13.159\u0026plusmn;4.674). The risk perception score was (39.949\u0026plusmn;11.869), with the correlation between fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception shown in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.2 Construction of structural equation models for fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception of cancer survivors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA structural equation model was constructed based on the medical coping, fertility concerns, and risk perception of the study participants, with the path coefficient of the model fitted using the maximum likelihood method. The operational results of the initial structural equation model are shown in Figure 2. The indicators of fit degree are as follows: c\u0026sup2;/df=5.801, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.079, goodness-of-fit index (GFI)=0.906, comparison of fit indexes (CFI)=0.872, incremental fit index (IFI)=0.873, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)=0.830, and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)=0.853. According to the fitting standards, the RMSEA and c\u0026sup2;/df failed to meet the fitting degree, which was corrected. The revised model is shown in Figure 3, where c\u0026sup2;/df=3.930 (\u0026lt; 5); RMSEA=0.075 (\u0026lt; 0.08); GFI=0.944, CFI=0.923, IFI=0.924, TLI=0.897, AGFI=0.911 (\u0026gt; 0.8). The results of the path coefficients for fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception among cancer survivors are shown in Table 2. Risk perception had a negative response to facing (\u0026beta;=-0.203, P \u0026lt; 0.001), and a positive response to avoidance, submission, and fertility concerns (\u0026beta;=0.227, \u0026beta;=0.274, \u0026beta;=0.266; P \u0026lt; 0.001); avoidance and submission had positive responses to fertility anxiety (\u0026beta;=0.107, \u0026beta;=0.304; P \u0026lt; 0.05), while facing had a negative response to fertility anxiety (\u0026beta;=-0.106, P \u0026lt; 0.05). To explore the mediating effect between paths, the bootstrapping technique was used with 5000 samples; the standard for confidence intervals was 95%, and the deviation correction method was used for testing. The upper and lower intervals of risk perception \u0026rarr; facing\u0026rarr; fertility concerns mediating path, risk perception \u0026rarr; avoidance \u0026rarr; fertility concerns mediating path, risk perception \u0026rarr; submission \u0026rarr; fertility concerns mediating path did not contain 0, and P \u0026lt; 0.001, so the mediation effect was established. The results are shown in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Analysis of fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception among cancer survivors\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the present study, the aggregate score of fertility anxiety among cancer survivors was (63.227\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12.664), and was generally at a moderate level. These results are similar to those obtained in other comparable domestic studies [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR30\" citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. The reasons for these similarities in results may be as follows: (1) the location of the cancers that form the study\u0026rsquo;s research objective directly involve the reproductive system, causing irreversible damage to it and creating subsequent fertility problems. (2) The median age of the population studied was (33.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.49) years old, which is the golden age for reproduction and the main point of responsibility for taking care of the family and raising children. Influenced by traditional ideas, people regard their children as the continuation of their lives, and the infertility caused by cancer can create a strong psychological conflict with respect to their psyche. (3) Patients with gynaecological malignant cancer face the risk of cancer recurrence and a shortened life cycle, which creates a degree of uncertainty with regard to their ability to establish a healthy career, provide social support, and maintain family relationships. (4) In addition to long-term medical treatment, cancer survivors with reproductive needs also have to deal with follow-up fertility problems. Poor information channels and insufficient effective communication between doctors and patients will also inevitably increase the risk of psychological distress. (5) The heritability of cancer and the toxicity of the drugs involved in the treatment process make most survivors worry that the disease will be passed on to future generations and will affect the future health of their children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scores for the relevant dimensions in this study were (21.114\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.478) for medical coping, (16.680\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.800) for avoidance, and (13.159\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.674) for submission, all of which were higher than the national norm [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], a finding that is similar to the results previously obtained by Ling [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. This shows that the participants in this study were more inclined to adopt the coping style of facing when dealing with the stressful event of cancer, which can effectively guide the patients to correct their attitude, relieve pressure, and contribute to their physical and mental health. The reasons may be as follows: (1) most of the participants in this study had a strong marital status, a good husband-and-wife relationship, and warm family atmosphere, all of which are conducive to guiding patients to adopt positive and appropriate coping styles, and which help to alleviate the physical and mental impact of fear of recurrence. (2) In addition, most of the study participants had more than one child and faced less pressure to have and raise children. This is coupled with the fact that with the increasing maturity of medical technology, patients have more confidence in their treatment outcomes. Patients should be encouraged to actively express negative emotions they are experiencing to medical personnel, family members, and fellow patients as a positive means of coping, allowing them to actively adjust negative emotions to enhance their psychological adaptation level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a category of psychology, risk perception is the attitude, cognition, and view generated by an individual when facing a stressful event, which emphasises the impact of stressful events on an individual's intuitive judgment and subjective feelings. The scores for each dimension of risk perception assessed in this study from high to low were physical risk (16.713\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.842), economic risk (13.173\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.587), and social psychological risk (10.062\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.540). The total score of risk perception was (39.949\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11.869), which was at the medium level, slightly higher than the results of foreign studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. The likely reasons for this are as follows: (1) in the context of global informatisation, people have an increasing number of channels through which to obtain medical-related information, while their ability to discriminate information is limited. This is coupled with media exaggeration, meaning the lower the trust in the medical system, the greater the risk perception of patients. (2) Compared with economically developed countries, China's medical insurance system remains imperfect. The personal medical burden is still relatively high and many cancer patients spend their lifetime family income on disease treatment, while also fearing that the treatment will ultimately prove unsuccessful. The health belief model points out that, based on individual cognition and the surrounding environment, there will be differences in the perception level of disease risk. Even the real situation will often prove inconsistent with the actual risk of disease, which may cause the disease risk itself to be over or underestimated, leading to the deviation of individual behaviour [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Those who overestimate the risk of disease will be left in a chronic stress state for an extended period and will experience anxiety, depression, and other negative emotions that seriously damage their physical and mental health. However, underestimation of risk causes patients to ignore potential risks and react negatively, which is not conducive to follow-up monitoring and treatment of the disease [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR38\" citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, in clinical work, while also focusing on improving medical services and technology, medical staff should seek to strengthen disease knowledge education for patients, improve patients' cognitive levels, and promote the improvement of doctor-patient trust mechanisms. Mass media should seek to strengthen its degree of professional quality, objectivity, and truth with regard to reporting and publicity, and correctly guide the direction of public opinion. The government should increase financial input, improve the reimbursement system of social medical insurance, and promote and establish a reasonable and orderly hierarchical diagnosis and treatment model. Hospitals should provide reasonable diagnoses and treatments without excessive medical treatment, thus reducing patients' perceived economic risks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4.2 Analysis of the interaction between reproductive anxiety and risk perception in medical coping of cancer survivors\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structural equation model constructed using the three variables included in this study: medical coping, risk perception, and fertility concerns is well-fitted. This verifies the hypothesis proposed in the literature analysis section above that risk perception may directly or indirectly influence fertility concerns in cancer survivors through medical coping. The output of the structural equation model revealed that: (1) the risk perception of cancer survivors had a favourable predictive effect on fertility anxiety; (2) risk perception was inversely associated with medical coping but was positively correlated with avoidance and submission; and (3) risk perception can not only directly affect fertility anxiety but also indirectly affect the fertility anxiety level of cancer survivors through the dimensions of facing, avoidance, and submission. This suggests that cancer patients can be effectively assisted in obtaining correct cancer risk information, can take the initiative to participate in the medical decision-making process, and can develop correct, reasonable coping strategies when facing risks, that can help to reduce their level of anxiety and depression. A negative response to cancer risk negatively affects individual health and hinders the implementation of cancer prevention and control measures [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedical coping [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] is the coping style adopted by individuals when they encounter stressful events, such as adversity. It is a decisive and protective intermediate variable for psychological stress and health adaptation that can regulate patients\u0026rsquo; adoption of different coping strategies during stressful life events. Different coping strategies will impact a patient\u0026rsquo;s state of physical and cognitive well-being to varying degrees, thus affecting the treatment and rehabilitation of the disease. Relevant studies have shown that although positive coping styles cannot completely relieve the discomfort of cancer survivors, they can significantly improve their psychological status [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Negative coping styles will encourage patients to choose escape psychology, which will aggravate anxiety and depression and have a serious adverse impact on individual disease prognosis and health behaviour [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. Therefore, it is desirable to formulate rational coping strategies to strengthen the enjoyment of the quality of life of cancer survivors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eSeveral factors affect fertility anxiety. Through a structural equation model, this study found that risk perception has a direct effect on cancer survivors\u0026rsquo; fertility anxiety and that medical coping, as an intermediary variable between risk perception and fertility anxiety, can regulate the interaction between them. The findings of this study were that: (1) the path coefficients among the three variables assessed were not high. This analysis may be related to the subjective variables measured by the questionnaire; other important variables, such as emotional states (including anxiety and depression), cancer-related fatigue, and social support, were not considered in this modelling study. The prospective study should be conducted with a view to further supplement other important psychosocial factors affecting the fertility concerns of cancer survivors according to this theoretical framework. Additional sample sizes should also be made available, and the next verification of these research findings should be jointly carried out across multiple locations. (2) As a cross-sectional survey, this study only discussed the status quo mechanisms of cancer survivors' risk perceptions, medical coping, and fertility anxiety. Because these three factors are dynamically changing and developing, further longitudinal studies are required to explore their future development paths. (3) In addition, an evidence-based approach should be considered to explore validated intervention strategies to improve the degree of fertility anxiety in cancer survivors, pursue the best available evidence, and apply it in clinical care settings to ultimately benefit patients.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.Ethics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has been approved by The First Affiliated Hospital University of South China Ethics Committee (No.4304070901517). All participants signed informed consent prior to the enrollment of this study. All procedures performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.Consent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.Availability of data and materials\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.Competing interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.Funding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by The Health Commission of Hunan Province (NO.202214034799)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.Authors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWu Xiaoqin: Conceptualization, Methodology. Peng Yejuan and Xiong Yuying:\u0026nbsp;Data\u0026nbsp;collection. Wu Xiaoqin Writing-Original draft preparation. Xun Rende:Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Ou Yan and Tong Mei: Data analyses. Zhou Yanhui: Supervision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.Acknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by The Affiliated Hospital of University of South China and The Health Commission of Hunan Province.We thank all the study participants for volunteering to participate in this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu ZC, Li ZX, Zhang Y, Zhou T, Zhang J, You W, et al. Interpretation on the report of Global Cancer Statistics 2020. J Multidiscip Cancer Manag. 2021;7:1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12151/jmcm.2021.02-01\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.12151/jmcm.2021.02-01\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQiu J, Tang L, Li P, Fu J. An investigation into the reproductive concerns of young women with breast cancer. Asia-Pacific J Oncol Nurs. 2022;9:100055. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.APJON.2022.03.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.APJON.2022.03.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVanstone RN, Fergus K, Ladhani NNN, Warner E. Reproductive concerns and fear of cancer recurrence: a qualitative study of women\u0026rsquo;s experiences of the perinatal period after cancer. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:738. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/S12884-021-04208-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/S12884-021-04208-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGorman JR, Drizin JH, Smith E, Flores-Sanchez Y, Harvey SM. Patient-centered communication to address young adult breast cancer survivors\u0026rsquo; reproductive and sexual health concerns. Health Commun. 2021;36:1743\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794550\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10410236.2020.1794550\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBenedict C, Nieh JL, Hahn AL, McCready A, Diefenbach M, Ford JS. Looking at future cancer survivors, give them a roadmap: addressing fertility and family-building topics in post-treatment cancer survivorship care. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29:2203\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S00520-020-05731-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S00520-020-05731-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePartridge AH, Gelber S, Peppercorn J, Sampson E, Knudsen K, Laufer M, Rosenberg R, Przypyszny M, Rein A, Winer EP. Web-Based Survey of Fertility Issues in Young Women With Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(20):4174\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2004.01.159\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1200/jco.2004.01.159\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuggeri M, Pagan E, Bagnardi V, Bianco N, Gallerani E, Buser K, Giordano M, Gianni L, Rabaglio M, Freschi A, Cretella E, Clerico M, Farolfi A, Simoncini E, Ciccarese M, Rauch D, Ramello M, Glaus A, Berardi R, Pellanda AF. Fertility concerns, preservation strategies and quality of life in young women with breast cancer: Baseline results from an ongoing prospective cohort study in selected European Centers. Breast. 2019;47(0960\u0026ndash;9776):85\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.07.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.breast.2019.07.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalliday LE, Boughton MA. Exploring the concept of uncertain fertility, reproduction and motherhood after cancer in young adult women. Nurs Inq. 2011;18(2):135\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2011.00532.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1440-1800.2011.00532.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHajian-Tilaki K, Nikpour M. Accuracy of self-perceived risk perception of breast cancer development in Iranian women. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21:93. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/S12905-021-01238-Z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/S12905-021-01238-Z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoulding L, Furze G, Birks Y. Randomized controlled trials of interventions to change maladaptive illness beliefs in people with coronary heart disease: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(5):946\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05306.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05306.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlovic P. The perception of risk. Dr: Earthscan From Routledge; 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCox DF, Rich SU. Perceived Risk and Consumer Decision-Making\u0026mdash;The Case of Telephone Shopping. J Mark Res. 1964;1(4):32\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/002224376400100405\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/002224376400100405\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlankertz DF, Cox DF. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. J Mark Res. 1969;6(1):110. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/3150012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/3150012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang Y. The relationship between risk perception and social support psychological resilience and medical coping in patients with unstable angina pectoris [MSc thesis]. Henan: Henan University; 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKalbfleisch M, Cyr A, Gregorio N, Nyhof-Young J. Investigating coping strategies and social support among Canadian melanoma patients: A survey approach. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2015;25(2):60\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5737/236880762516065\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5737/236880762516065\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCompas BE. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychol Bull. 1987;101(3):393\u0026ndash;403. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.3.393\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0033-2909.101.3.393\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDenollet J, Martens EJ, Nykl\u0026iacute;ček I, Conraads VM, de Gelder B. Clinical events in coronary patients who report low distress: Adverse effect of repressive coping. Health Psychol. 2008;27(3):302\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.302\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.302\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeifel H, Strack S, Nagy VT. Coping strategies and associated features of medically ill patients. Psychosom Med. 1987;49(6):616\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-198711000-00007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/00006842-198711000-00007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLim J, Shon E, Paek M, Daly B. The dyadic effects of coping and resilience on psychological distress for cancer survivor couples. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(12):3209\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2334-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00520-014-2334-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriedberg A, Malefakis D. Resilience, Trauma, and Coping. Psychodynamic Psychiatry. 2018;46(1):81\u0026ndash;113. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1521/pdps.2018.46.1.81\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1521/pdps.2018.46.1.81\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLazzarotto S, Martin F, Saint-Laurent A, Hamidou Z, Aghababian V, Auquier P, Baumstarck K. Coping with age-related hearing loss: patient-caregiver dyad effects on quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019c;17(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1161-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12955-019-1161-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang HW. Study on the Status and Influencing Factors of Reproductive Concerns in Breast Cancer Patients of Childbearing Period [MSc thesis]. North China University of Science and Technology; 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLogan S, Perz J, Ussher JM, Peate M, Anazodo A. Systematic review of fertility-related psychological distress in cancer patients: Informing on an improved model of care. Psycho-oncology. 2018;28(1):22\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4927\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pon.4927\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang Y, Logan S, Stern K, Wakefield CE, Cohn RJ, Agresta F, Jayasinghe Y, Deans R, Segelov E, McLachlan RI, Gerstl B, Sullivan E, Ledger WE, Anazodo A. Supportive oncofertility care, psychological health and reproductive concerns: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer. 2019;28(2):809\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04883-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00520-019-04883-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGorman JR, Drizin JH, Smith E, Flores-Sanchez Y, Harvey SM. Patient-centered communication to address young adult breast cancer survivors\u0026rsquo; reproductive and sexual health concerns. Health Commun. 2021;36:1743\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794550\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10410236.2020.1794550\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQiao T. Development and preliminary application of the Chinese version of the reproductive concerns after cancer scale [MSc thesis]. Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou University; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen XH, Jiang QJ. Report on application of Chinese version of MCMQ in 701 patients. Chin J Behav Med Sci. 2000;9(1):18\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFang L. The study of questionnaire construction of risk perception and it's influence factors for common chronic inpatients [MSc thesis]. Xi'an: Fourth Military Medical University; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen LX, Hou YX, Yu LJ. Reproductive Concerns of Young Married Female Patients with Lung Cancer and Its Influence Factors: A 239-case. Study J Nurs. 2020;27:57\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQian Z, Yang XT, Lin JM. Meta integration of reproductive concerns experience in cancer patients. Study J Nurs. 2023;30:55\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Y, Hu DY, Liu YL. et.a. The mediating role of medical coping and negative emotions in the relationship between family APGAR and psychological resilience of gynecologic oncology patients. J Nurs Sci. 2023;38:89\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin JM, Chen ML, Cai F. Relationship among post-traumatic growth, coping style and fear of cancer recurrence in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherap. J Clin Nurs. 2021;20:32\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFigueiras MJ, Neto DD, Mar\u0026ocirc;co J. Understanding the relationship between illness perceptions of breast cancer and perceived risk in a sample of U.A.E. female university students: the role of comparative risk. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22:193. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/S12905-022-01771-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/S12905-022-01771-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaalosalo-Harris K, Skirton H. Mixed method systematic review: the relationship between breast cancer risk perception and health-protective behaviour in women with family history of breast cancer. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73:760\u0026ndash;74. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/JAN.13158\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/JAN.13158\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin C, Wang R, Tao L, Liu M, Liu J. Association between risk perception and acceptance for a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine to children among child caregivers in China. Front Public Health. 2022;10:834572. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/FPUBH.2022.834572\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/FPUBH.2022.834572\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChung CW, Lee SJ. Estimated risks and optimistic self-perception of breast cancer risk in Korean women. Appl Nurs Res. 2013;26:180\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.APNR.2013.06.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.APNR.2013.06.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoehm JK, Chen Y, Qureshi F, Soo J, Umukoro P, Hernandez R, Lloyd-Jones D, Kubzansky LD. Positive emotions and favorable cardiovascular health: A 20-year longitudinal study. Prev Med. 2020;136(0091\u0026ndash;7435):106103. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106103\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106103\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMu Q, Hanson L, Hoelzle J, Fehring RJ. Young women's knowledge about fertility and their fertility health risk factors. Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing. Volume 48. JOGNN; 2019. pp. 153\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOGN.2018.12.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.JOGN.2018.12.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsai E, Robertson MC, Lyons EJ, Swartz MC, Basen-Engquist K. Physical activity and exercise self-regulation in cancer survivors: A qualitative study. Psycho-oncology. 2018;27:563\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/PON.4519\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/PON.4519\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu l. A dissertation submitted to Huazhong University of Science and Technology for the Degree for Master of Library and Information Studies [MSc thesis]. Huazhong University of Science\u0026amp;Technology; 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQiu HZ, Liang RJ. Stress and psychological crisis intervention, 2008.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCavanagh L, Obasi EM. The Moderating Role of Coping Style on Chronic Stress Exposure and Cardiovascular Reactivity Among African American Emerging Adults. Prev Sci. 2020;1389\u0026ndash;4986. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01141-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11121-020-01141-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong J, Wei Z, Wang W. Preoperative psychological distress, coping and quality of life in Chinese patients with newly diagnosed gastric cancer. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24(17\u0026ndash;18):2439\u0026ndash;47. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12816\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jocn.12816\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChabowski M, Jankowska-Polanska B, Lomper K, Janczak D. The effect of coping strategy on quality of life in patients with NSCLC. Cancer Manage Res. 2018;10(1179\u0026ndash;1322):4085\u0026ndash;93. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s175210\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2147/cmar.s175210\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe Y, Jian H, Yan M, Zhu J, Li G, Lou VWQ, Chen J. Coping, mood and health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional study in Chinese patients with advanced lung cancer. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e023672. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023672\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023672\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 Fertility concerns and medical coping, risk perception and correlation among cancer survivors（N=516）\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"644\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.8062015503876%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.3953488372093%\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertility concerns\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"40.62015503875969%\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedical coping\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.178294573643411%\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRisk perception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"38.00475059382423%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.477434679334916%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.42755344418052%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.090261282660332%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubmission\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.84472049689441%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertility concerns\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.428571428571427%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.732919254658386%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.354037267080745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.440993788819876%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.198757763975156%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.84472049689441%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.428571428571427%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.281**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.732919254658386%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.354037267080745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.440993788819876%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.198757763975156%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.84472049689441%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.428571428571427%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.302**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.732919254658386%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.446**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.354037267080745%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.440993788819876%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.198757763975156%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.84472049689441%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubmission\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.428571428571427%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.411**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.732919254658386%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.360**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.354037267080745%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.443**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.440993788819876%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.198757763975156%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.84472049689441%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRisk perception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.428571428571427%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.298**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.732919254658386%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.153**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.354037267080745%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.165**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.440993788819876%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.211**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.198757763975156%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.84472049689441%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.428571428571427%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.227\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.732919254658386%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.114\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.354037267080745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.680\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.440993788819876%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.159\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.198757763975156%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.949\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.84472049689441%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"21.428571428571427%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.664\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.732919254658386%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.478\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.354037267080745%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.800\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.440993788819876%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.674\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.198757763975156%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.869\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;note：*：P＜0.05。\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2\u0026nbsp;Path coefficient between fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"649\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.92307692307692%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegression pathway\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS.E.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.846153846153847%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.538461538461538%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.92307692307692%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacing\u0026lt;---risk perception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.203\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.486\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.846153846153847%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.133\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.538461538461538%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.92307692307692%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvoidance\u0026lt;---risk perception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.227\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.846153846153847%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.611\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.538461538461538%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.92307692307692%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubmission\u0026lt;---risk perception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.274\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.472\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.085\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.846153846153847%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.538461538461538%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.92307692307692%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertility concerns\u0026lt;---Avoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.107\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.033\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.846153846153847%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.538461538461538%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.92307692307692%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertility concerns\u0026lt;---submission\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.304\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.134\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.846153846153847%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.365\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.538461538461538%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.92307692307692%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertility concerns\u0026lt;---risk perception\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.266\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.202\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.846153846153847%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.809\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.538461538461538%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"32.92307692307692%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertility concerns\u0026lt;---facing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.106\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.846153846153847%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.176\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.538461538461538%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003enote：b: Non-normalised coefficient；\u0026beta;：Normalised factor coefficient；***，P＜0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 Mediating effects of fertility concerns, medical coping, and risk perception among cancer survivors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"625\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.52%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMediating\u0026nbsp;pathway\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.96%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect size\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.8%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.72%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% lower limit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.72%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% upper limit\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.28%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.52%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRisk perception\u0026rarr;facing\u0026rarr;fertility concerns\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.96%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.8%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.72%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.72%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.28%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.52%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRisk Perception\u0026rarr;avoidance\u0026rarr;fertility concerns\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.96%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.8%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.72%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.72%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.043\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.28%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.52%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRisk perception\u0026rarr;submission\u0026rarr;fertility concerns\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.96%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.063\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.8%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.72%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.036\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"14.72%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.101\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.28%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Cancer, Fertility anxiety, Medical coping, Risk perception, Structural equation model","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4108249/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4108249/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to explore the associations between fertility anxiety, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors. We assessed 516 cancer survivors using fertility anxiety, medical coping, and risk perception scales. The score obtained for fertility anxiety was (63.227\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12.664); the score for the coping dimension was (21.114\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.478); the score for the avoidance dimension was (16.680\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.800); and the score for the submission dimension was (13.159\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.674). The mean risk perception score was 39.949\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11.869. The structural equation model showed that risk perception had a negative role in facing (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and a positive role in avoidance, submission, and fertility concerns (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Avoidance and submission had positive effects on fertility concerns (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), while facing had negative effects on fertility concerns (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Medical coping was a mediating variable between risk perception and fertility concerns. Fertility anxiety and risk perception were at a medium level among the cancer survivors assessed, with the participants more inclined to adopt a confrontational coping style. Medical coping can modulate the interaction between risk perception and fertility concerns.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Constructing a structural equation model of fertility anxiety, medical coping, and risk perception in cancer survivors","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-03-29 19:06:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4108249/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2d7f8f24-1e17-45a7-a146-f86ce46aab55","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 29th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-02-20T09:08:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-03-29 19:06:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4108249","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4108249","identity":"rs-4108249","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}