Decision-making for congenital anomalies diagnosed during pregnancy: a narrative review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this narrative review was to assess the limited literature on fetal anomalies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy and parental decision-making and identify sources of information deemed as facilitators and barriers to medical decisions. METHODS: This was a literature review of source material and information about fetal anomalies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy, decision-making, decision tools or aids, and sources of information for anomalies. The search string used explored related peer-reviewed publications and systematic reviews between 2007 and 2024. We also reviewed references from publications meeting inclusion criteria. The search was conducted between June 2022 and February 2024. Exclusion criteria included conference abstracts, non-peer reviewed literature, and articles not available in English language. A total of 77 publications were identified by searching multiple databases using a predefined search string. The search encompassed full text articles from 2007 to 2024 and 11 full-text publications were ultimately included in the review. A list of 45 co-occurring keywords was generated from the included texts, with each keyword having a minimum of two co-occurrences. RESULTS: Key themes identified included (1) the role of the clinician and need for development of professional knowledge and empathy surrounding discussion of fetal anomalies with patients; (2) information gathering, with individuals reporting use of multiple strategies to obtain information; while the majority found information satisfying, they preferred more details on diagnosis, long-term outcomes of the fetus/child and management of the pregnancy or termination process; and (3) decision-making, the path and process of how individuals made decisions about the pregnancy including quality of life, future fertility, and seeking other people's experiences. CONCLUSION: Many factors contribute to an individual's decision-making after a diagnosis of a fetal anomalies diagnosed in the second trimester of pregnancy, ranging from personal beliefs and goals to shared experiences of others and access to care. Understanding how sources of information may be deemed both as facilitators and barriers to different individuals during the decision-making process is important for healthcare providers in order to understand how to most effectively support patients. There is a dearth of information on training healthcare professionals to provide support to patients facing these decisions.

Clinicians' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to sperm banking in adolescent males with cancer: a mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: To examine processes, barriers, and facilitators to sperm banking counseling and decision-making for adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer from the perspective of clinicians who completed Oncofertility communication training. We also identify opportunities for improvement to inform future interventions and implementation. METHODS: A survey (N=104) and subsequent focus groups (N=15) were conducted with non-physician clinicians practicing in pediatric oncology who completed Oncofertility communication training. RESULTS: Most survey participants were confident in communicating about the impact of cancer on fertility (n=87, 83.7%) and fertility preservation options (n=80, 76.9%). Most participants reported never/rarely using a sperm banking decision tool (n=70, 67.3%), although 98.1% (n=102) said a decision tool with a family-centered approach would be beneficial. Primary themes in the subsequent focus groups included variable processes/workflows (inconsistent approaches to consult initiation; involvement of adolescents, caregivers, and various clinician types; assessment of puberty/sexual experience), structural and psychosocial barriers (cost and logistics, developmental, cultural, clinical acuity/prognosis), and facilitators (educational materials, alternative options for banking). Opportunities and strategies for improvement (including fertility preservation in existing research protocols; additional staffing/resources; oncologist education and buy-in; and development of decision tools) were informed by challenges identified in the other themes. CONCLUSION: Barriers to adolescent sperm banking remain, even among clinicians who have completed Oncofertility training. Although training is one factor necessary to facilitate banking, structural and psychosocial barriers persist. Given the complexities of offering sperm banking to pediatric populations, continued efforts are needed to mitigate structural barriers and develop strategies to facilitate decision-making before childhood cancer treatment.