High-risk behaviors and low utilization of health services may contribute to the lower life expectancy in men. In the context of public health, behavioral and preventive interventions are needed to reduce the gender disparity.

Infertility is a prevalent condition affecting an estimated 70 million people globally. The World Health Organization estimates that 9% of couples worldwide struggle with fertility issues and that male factor contributes to 50% of the issues. Male infertility has a variety of causes, ranging from genetic mutations to lifestyle choices to medical illnesses or medications. Recent studies examining DNA fragmentation, capacitation, and advanced paternal age have shed light on previously unknown topics. The role of conventional male reproductive surgeries aimed at improving or addressing male factor infertility, such as varicocelectomy and testicular sperm extraction, have recently been studied in an attempt to expand their narrow indications. Despite advances in the understanding of male infertility, idiopathic sperm abnormalities still account for about 30% of male infertility. With current and future efforts examining the molecular and genetic factors responsible for spermatogenesis and fertilization, we may be better able to understand etiologies of male factor infertility and thus improve outcomes for our patients.

In one of the largest cohorts of male fertility and obesity, serum hormone and semen parameters demonstrated mild but significant relationships with BMI, possibly contributing to subfertility in this population.

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate pediatric oncology providers’ attitudes toward fertility preservation (FP), their use of educational materials, their approach to FP discussion, and their FP knowledge specifically pertaining to adolescent males. Methods A 40-item online survey was distributed to physicians, advanced practice nurses (APN), and nurses within pediatric oncology. Results About 78.7% of physicians, 81.4% of APN, and 51.9% of nurses reported high levels of comfort in discussing FP options with adolescent males (P<0.05). Fifty-one percent of physicians and 54.2% of APN reported using educational materials, compared with 38.9% of nurses (P<0.05). Regarding knowledge of FP technologies, 48.7% of physicians, 52.5% of APN, and 81.1% of nurses reported being unfamiliar with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (P<0.05). An overwhelming majority (92.9%) of respondents reported having no formal training in discussing FP. Finally, 84.8% of respondents believed formal training on this issue would be useful to them. Conclusions This study illustrates an unmet need in the education of pediatric oncology providers, as knowledge gaps and discomfort are common themes reported by health care professionals within the context of adolescent male FP care. In addition, this study reveals a high level of receptiveness to FP training by these same providers.