Objective: A dearth of studies focusing on young women (<40 years) with breast cancer have hampered the understanding of the type, prevalence, and predictors of sexual dysfunction and reproductive concerns in this population.Methods: Data were collected from 181 women (response rate = 60%) diagnosed with breast cancer approximately 2 years previously (age 21‐39) using the Swedish National Quality Registry for Breast Cancer and a survey including standardized measures of sexual dysfunction, reproductive concerns, body image, and health‐related quality of life. Multivariable logistic binary regression analyses were used to identify predictors of sexual dysfunction and reproductive concerns.Results: Sexual dysfunction in at least one domain was reported by 68% of the women, and a high level of reproductive concerns in at least one dimension was reported by 58%. Model results showed that current endocrine treatment was a significant predictor of dysfunction related to lubrication (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.2‐12.1) and vaginal discomfort (OR 8.7, 95% CI 1.5‐51.5). Negative body image was related to satisfaction with sex life (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0‐1.2). A high level of reproductive concerns was predicted by a wish for (additional) children in the future (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.1‐10.2) and by previous chemotherapy (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1‐5.9).Conclusions: Sexual dysfunction and reproductive concerns are common in young women with breast cancer. Current endocrine treatment, previous chemotherapy, a negative body image, and a wish for children in the future predict higher level of problems.

Two decades after the introduction of Swedish legislation that allows children born as a result of gamete donation access to identifying information about the donor, a nationwide multicentre study on the psychosocial consequences of this legislation for recipients and donors of gametes was initiated in 2005. The aim of the present study was to investigate recipient couples’ attitudes and behaviour regarding disclosure to offspring and others, attitudes towards genetic parenthood and perceptions of information regarding parenthood after donation. The present study is part of the prospective longitudinal ‘Swedish study on gamete donation', including all fertility clinics performing donation treatment in Sweden. A consecutive cohort of 152 heterosexual recipient couples of donated oocytes (72% response) and 127 heterosexual recipient couples of donated sperm (81% response) accepted participation in the study. In connection with the donation treatment, male and female participants individually completed two questionnaires with study-specific instruments concerning disclosure, genetic parenthood and informational aspects. About 90% of participants (in couples receiving anonymous donated gametes) supported disclosure and openness to the offspring concerning his/her genetic origin. Only 6% of all participants had not told other people about their donation treatment. Between 26 and 40% of participants wanted additional information/support about parenthood following donation treatment. Two decades after the Swedish legislation of identifiable gamete donors, recipient couples of anonymously donated sperm and oocytes are relatively open about their treatment and support disclosure to offspring. Recipient couples may benefit from more information and support regarding parenthood after gamete donation. Further studies are required to follow-up on the future parents’ actual disclosure behaviour directed to offspring.

The Internet should be suitable for delivery of interventions targeting young cancer patients. Young people are familiar with the technologies, and this patient group is small and geographically dispersed. Still, only few psycho-educational Web-based interventions are designed for this group. Young cancer patients consider reproductive health, including sexuality, an area of great importance and approximately 50% report sexual problems and fertility-related concerns following cancer treatment. Therefore, we set out to develop a self-help Web-based intervention, Fex-Can, to alleviate such problems. To improve its quality, we decided to involve patients and significant others as research partners. The first 18 months of our collaboration are described in this paper. The intervention will subsequently be tested in a feasibility study followed by a randomized controlled trial. The study aims to describe the development of a Web-based intervention in long-term collaboration with patient research partners (PRPs). Ten former cancer patients and two significant others participated in building the Web-based intervention, using a participatory design. The development process is described according to the design step in the holistic framework presented by van Gemert-Pijnen et al and evaluates the PRPs' impact on the content, system, and service quality of the planned intervention. The collaboration between the research group and the PRPs mainly took place in the form of 1-day meetings to develop the key components of the intervention: educational and behavior change content, multimedia (pictures, video vignettes, and audios), interactive online activities (eg, self-monitoring), and partial feedback support (discussion forum, tailored feedback from experts). The PRPs influenced the intervention's content quality in several ways. By repeated feedback on prototypes, the information became more comprehensive, relevant, and understandable. The PRPs gave suggestions concerning the number of exercises and pointed out texts and pictures needing revision (eg, experienced as normative or stereotypical) to increase the persuasiveness of the program. The system quality was improved by PRPs' feedback on design, technical malfunctions, and navigation on the website. Based on feedback about availability of professional support (technical problems and program content), the organization for support was clarified, which increased service quality. The PRPs also influenced the research project on an overall level by suggesting modifications of inclusion criteria for the RCT and by questioning the implementation plan. With suggestions and continuous feedback from PRPs, it was possible to develop a Web-based intervention with persuasive design, believed to be relevant and attractive for young persons with cancer who have sexual problems or fertility distress. In the next step, the intervention will be tested in a feasibility study, followed by an RCT to test the intervention's effectiveness in reducing sexual problems and fertility distress. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 36621459; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN36621459 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6gFX40F6T).

What are oocyte donors and sperm donors' attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring? Oocyte and sperm donors in an identity-release donor programme support disclosure to donor offspring and have overall positive or neutral attitudes towards future contact with offspring. There is a global trend towards open-identity gamete donation with an increasing number of countries introducing legislation allowing only identifiable donors. While women and men who enrol in identity-release donor programmes accept that they may be contacted by donor offspring, there is limited knowledge of their attitudes towards disclosure to donor offspring and how they perceive their relationship to potential donor offspring. The present study is part of the ‘Swedish study on gamete donation’, a prospective cohort study including donors at all fertility clinics performing donation treatment in Sweden. During a 3-year period (2005–2008), donors were recruited consecutively and a total of 157 oocyte donors and 113 sperm donors (who did not donate to a specific ‘known’ couple) were included prior to donation. Participants in the present study include 125 female (80%) and 80 male donors (71%) that completed two follow-up assessments. Participants completed two postal questionnaires 2 months after donation and 14 months after donation. Attitudes towards disclosure to donor offspring were assessed with an established instrument. Perceptions of involvement with donor offspring and need for counselling was assessed with study-specific instruments. Statistical analyses were performed with non-parametric tests. A majority of oocyte and sperm donors supported disclosure to donor offspring (71–91%) and had positive or neutral attitudes towards future contact with offspring (80–87%). Sperm donors reported a higher level of involvement with potential donor offspring compared with oocyte donors (P = 0.005). Few donors reported a need for more counselling regarding the consequences of their donation. While the multicentre study design strengthens external validity, attrition induced a risk of selection bias. In addition, the use of study-specific instruments that have not been psychometrically tested is a limitation. The positive attitudes towards disclosure to offspring of female and male identity-release donors are in line with previous reports of anonymous and known donors. While our results on donors' general positive or neutral attitudes towards future contact with potential donor offspring are reassuring, a subset of donors with negative attitudes towards such contact warrants concern and suggests a need for counselling on long-term consequences of donating gametes. The ‘Swedish study on gamete donation’ was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, and the Regional Research Council in Uppsala-Örebro. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

What characterizes the group of donor-conceived (DC) individuals who request information about their identity-release sperm donor in Sweden, and what are their experiences of disclosure, information receipt and donor contact? Following three decades of identity-release donation in Sweden, few DC individuals have requested donor information with varying experiences of information receipt and donor contact. In 1985, Sweden was the first country worldwide to enact legislation that gave DC individuals the right to obtain identifying information about their donor. Since then, identity-release gamete donation has become available in many countries but there is limited knowledge about the individuals who request donor information. A nation-wide cross-sectional survey study was performed at all seven University hospitals that provided donation treatment in Sweden during 1985–2002. During this period only donor insemination to heterosexual couples was permitted. Inclusion criteria were being 18 years of age or older, conceived with donor sperm and having requested information about the donor by December 2020. Recruitment was performed during 2016–2020. A total of 60 individuals had requested information about their donor. Of these, 53 were approached and 40 individuals, representing 34 families, accepted study participation (75% response rate). Participants completed a postal survey with the WHO-10 well-being index and study-specific questions about experiences of disclosure, motivations for requesting donor information, receipt of information, as well as intentions and experiences of donor contact. Independent t-test and chi-square tests were used to compare ratings of participants with early and late disclosure. Of ∼900 DC individuals who had reached adult age, a total of 60 (≈7%) had requested information about the donor. Most of the 40 study participants (78%) made their requests within 2 years after reaching 18 years of age, or following disclosure at later ages (up to 32 years). Several participants had adult DC siblings in the family who had not requested any donor information. All except five participants received identifying information about the donor from the clinic. However, some donors had died or lacked contact information. Among those participants who were able to contact their donor, 41% had done so at the time of the study, while a third of the participants were unsure about potential contact. Several had met the donor in person and a few were in regular contact. About half of the participants had been informed about their donor conception in adolescence or adulthood (age 12–32), and there were significant differences between participants based on age at disclosure. Compared to those with early disclosure, participants with late disclosure were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with the timing of their disclosure (P = 0.021), to react with negative emotions (P < 0.001), and to subsequently contact the donor (P = 0.047). The limited population available for inclusion resulted in a small sample size, despite a high response rate. In addition, men’s lower participation rate must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. The small number of individuals requesting information about their identity-release sperm donor is surprising. While not all DC individuals appear to be interested in donor information, it is reasonable to assume that some are unaware of their donor conception and thus unable to make informed decisions regarding their genetic origins. During the coming years, young women and men in many countries will become eligible to access identifying information about their donor. In order to meet the needs of these individuals, and to support positive outcomes for all involved parties, it is essential that adequate protocols and resources are developed. Financial support from The Swedish Research Council. There are no conflicts of interest to declare. N/A.

Women of advanced age (40 years or older) are generally, at risk for pregnancy and delivery related problems. In addition, there is limited knowledge on being of advanced age and having been given Assisted Reproductive Treatment (ART) and its association with negative obstetric outcomes. Therefore, data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register was used to investigate pregnancy and neonatal outcomes for women aged 40 or more who had given birth. The secondary aim was to compare the obstetric outcomes of women who had used ART and women who had not undergone ART while adjusting for marital status across the age groups. Women of advanced age who had given birth in Sweden during 2007–2012 formed the index group, n = 37,558; a reference group of women comprised 71,472 women under the age of 40. An additional subgroup of women aged 45 or older when giving birth was also formed, n = 2229. The obstetric and neonatal data for all the women was derived from national register data. Women of advanced age were more often single, had undergone ART, and more often experienced adverse obstetric outcomes than did younger women. The neonate’s health was also more often adversely affected expressed as being born with low birth weight and Small for Gestational Age (SGA), having lower Apgar scores, and having more health problems during the first week compared to the reference group. Women who are approaching the upper limit of fecundity are at greater risk for having children who are preterm and SGA. The adverse effects of being preterm and SGA may have negative long-term effects, not only on the children but also on the mothers. This needs to be addressed more frequently in a clinical setting when advising women of all ages on pregnancy and ART treatment.