LGBTQI Sexual Well-Being and Embodiment After Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Study.

This study examined lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) cancer patients' sexual well-being post-cancer, and the associations between sexual well-being and social support, physical concerns, distress, quality of life (QOL), and coping. We used a mixed-methods approach, including 430 surveys and 103 interviews, representing a range of tumor types, sexual and gender identities, age groups, and intersex status. The findings indicated that LGBTQI people with cancer experience declines in sexual well-being following cancer, which are associated with reduced QOL, greater physical concerns, and lower social support. The perceived helpfulness of coping mechanisms was associated with greater sexual well-being across genders, with cisgender men reporting the sharpest declines in sexual well-being and highest use of coping mechanisms. Across all groups, searching for information online was the most frequently used coping mechanism, with support groups and counseling the most under-utilized. Qualitative findings facilitated interpretation of these results, providing examples of ways in which cancer impacted sexual well-being and how physical changes influence sexual embodiment or desire to engage in sex. Concerns about reduced sexual desire and activity, associated with changes to breasts, vulva, vagina, penis, erectile dysfunction, incontinence, scarring, and stoma, reflect previous findings in the non-LGBTQI cancer population. Unique to this population are the impact of physical changes on LGBTQI embodiment, including disruption to sexual and gender identities, and feelings of disconnection from queer communities. Addressing LGBTQI sexual well-being within oncology healthcare is a matter of sexual and reproductive justice, for a population whose needs are often overlooked within cancer care.

"I've had constant fears that I'll get cancer": the construction and experience of medical intervention on intersex bodies to reduce cancer risk.

PURPOSE: This paper examines the subjective experience of medical interventions on intersex bodies to reduce cancer risk. METHODS: Twenty-five individuals with intersex variations took part in semi-structured interviews, analysed through thematic discourse analysis. RESULTS: Intersex bodies were positioned as inherently sick and in need of modification, with cancer risk legitimating surgical and hormonal intervention. This resulted in embodied shame, with negative impacts on fertility and sexual wellbeing. However, many participants resisted discourses of bio-pathologisation and embraced intersex status. Some medical interventions, such as HRT, were perceived to have increased the risk of cancer. Absence of informed consent, and lack of information about intersex status and the consequences of medical intervention, was positioned as a human rights violation. This was compounded by ongoing medical mismanagement, including health care professional lack of understanding of intersex variations, and the objectification or stigmatization of intersex people within healthcare. The consequence was non-disclosure of intersex status in health contexts and lack of trust in health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The legitimacy of poorly-evidenced cancer risk discourses to justify medical intervention on intersex bodies needs to be challenged. Healthcare practitioners need to be provided with education and training about cultural safety practices for working with intersex people.

"Queer people are excellent caregivers, but we're stretched so very thin": Psychosocial wellbeing and impacts of caregiving among LGBTQI cancer carers.

BACKGROUND: LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex) communities are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable and high-risk population in oncology. LGBTQI cancer carers, including carers who are LGBTQI and other carers of LGBTQI people, experience many of the same stressors as LGBTQI patients but their support needs are often overlooked in the cancer literature. METHOD: This mixed-methods study examined distress and quality of life in LGBTQI cancer carers. Online surveys were completed by 129 carers and 31 carers took part in a one-to-one semi-structured interview. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) tested for differences in psychosocial outcomes and carer experiences by gender, sexuality, age, carer relationship and carer/patient LGBTQI status. Reflexive thematic analysis of interviews and open-ended survey responses facilitated in-depth examination of subjective experiences. RESULTS: 42.6% of participants reported high or very high distress. Distress was significantly positively correlated with discrimination in cancer care, health impact, financial impact and lack of family support; it was negatively correlated with comfort in LGBTQI sexuality and gender identity, social support and quality of life. Four themes were identified in thematic analysis of qualitative data: (1) Identity on the sidelines: LGBTQI sexuality and gender pushed aside during cancer caregiving; (2) Fear of being shut-out: rejection and exclusion of LGBTQI cancer carers; (3) Lack of support for LGBTQI caregivers; and (4) Closer and stronger relationships due to a culture of mutual caregiving. CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQI cancer carers must contend with typical caregiving demands whilst also managing additional minority stressors, including discrimination, rejection from family, isolation from LGBTQI communities, and invisibility in healthcare and support services. Despite this, LGBTQI carers showed resilience in building their own mutually supportive networks to rally around the person with cancer, which were reported to ameliorate psychosocial vulnerabilities. Service providers need to recognize the needs of LGBTQI cancer carers through inclusive and reflective practices. This will facilitate trust and patient and carer sexuality and gender identity disclosure, with positive consequences for wellbeing and satisfaction with cancer care.

Disrupted identities, invisibility and precarious support: a mixed methods study of LGBTQI adolescents and young adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer report higher levels of depression and anxiety and lower health related quality of life than non-LGBTQI AYAs with cancer, and LGBTQI adults with cancer. This mixed methods study examined LGBTQI AYAs' experiences of cancer and cancer care, to understand these health disparities. METHODS: Online surveys were completed by 95 LGBTQI AYAs with cancer (age 16-39 years); 19 AYAs took part in a one-to-one semi structured interview. Reflexive thematic analysis of interviews and open-ended survey responses facilitated in-depth examination of subjective experiences; descriptive statistics performed on individual closed-ended survey items identified the percentage of AYAs reporting experiences identified in the qualitative analysis. RESULTS: 63% of AYAs reported high or very high distress on the K10. Three themes were identified in the qualitative analysis: 1) "Identities in flux", included subthemes "Cancer disrupts developing identities, and involvement with LGBTQI communities"; "Internalized prejudice impacts identities"; and "Cancer facilitates identities and embodiment". 2) "Invisibility in cancer care", included subthemes "Navigating disclosure amongst cis-heteronormative assumptions", "Discrimination and paternalistic cancer care" and " Cis-heteronormativity within cancer information". 3) "Precarious social support for LGBTQI AYAs with cancer", included subthemes " Social support during cancer is helpful for LGBTQI AYAs", "LGBTQI AYAs navigate limited support", and" Finding cancer peer support networks is difficult for LGBTQI AYAs". CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQI AYAs with cancer experience psychosocial vulnerabilities related to identity development, experiences of care, and social support networks. These factors likely contribute to their previously evidenced elevated risk of distress, relative to both non-LGBTQI AYAs and LGBTQI older adults. AYAs affected by cancer may require additional, tailored supportive care, including targeted information resources, LGBTQI AYA specific cancer support groups, or partnerships and referrals to LGBTQI community organisations. Additionally, it is evident that health care professionals and cancer services have much work to do in ensuring LGBTQI AYAs receive affirming and appropriate care across paediatric and adult clinical settings. They must move beyond assuming all patients are cisgender, heterosexual and do not have intersex variations unless otherwise stated; work to signal inclusivity and facilitate disclosure; and be able to respond appropriately with tailored information and care, which is inclusive of LGBTQI partners, chosen family, and support systems.

Almost invisible: A review of inclusion of LGBTQI people with cancer in online patient information resources.

OBJECTIVE: This review assessed the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people in online cancer information. METHODS: The websites of Australian cancer organizations were reviewed to identify if they included LGBTQI people and the extent and nature of this inclusion. Websites that did not include LGBTQI people were then reviewed to identify if information was implicitly LGBTQI inclusive. International LGBTQI cancer information resources were reviewed to identify key content. RESULTS: Of sixty-one Australian cancer organization websites reviewed, eight (13%) mentioned LGBTQI people, including 13 information resources targeted to LGBTQI people and 19 general cancer information resources that mentioned LGBTQI people. For Australian cancer websites that did not mention LGBTQI people, 88% used gender neutral language to refer to partners, 69% included a range of sexual behaviours, 13% used gender neutral language when referring to hormones or reproductive anatomy but none acknowledged diverse relationship types. Internationally, 38 LGBTQI-specific cancer information resources were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patient information resources need to be LGBTQI inclusive. LGBTQI-targeted resources are required to address this population's unique needs and improve cultural safety and cancer outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Recommendations are provided for LGBTQI inclusive cancer patient information resources.

Reinforcing or Disrupting Gender Affirmation: The Impact of Cancer on Transgender Embodiment and Identity.

There is a pressing need for greater understanding and focus on cancer survivorship and informal cancer caring of trans people (binary and non-binary), across tumor types, to inform culturally safe trans inclusive cancer information and care. This qualitative study, part of the mixed methods Out with Cancer project, examined experiences of trans embodiment and identity after cancer diagnosis and treatment. We drew on open-ended survey responses from 63 trans cancer survivors and 23 trans cancer carers, as well as interviews and a photo-elicitation activity with a subset of 22 participants (15 cancer survivors, 7 cancer carers). Reflexive thematic analysis identified three themes: Cancer enhances trans embodiment, through experiences of gender euphoria following cancer treatment, and acceleration of decisions about gender affirmation; cancer erases or inhibits gender affirmation; trans embodiment is invisible or pathologized in cancer care. These findings demonstrate that trans embodiment and identity, as well as the process of gender affirmation, may be disrupted by cancer or informal cancer caring. Conversely, cancer and cancer treatment can positively impact the embodied identity and lives of trans people, despite the anxiety and strain of negotiating medical procedures. However, if healthcare professionals operate within a cis-heteronormative framework and do not understand the meaning of embodied change following cancer treatment for trans individuals, these positive benefits may not be realized.

Evaluating Maybe Later Baby, a Fertility Information Resource for Adolescents and Young Adults Diagnosed with Cancer: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Study.

Purpose: Fertility is a major concern for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 15-30 years) diagnosed with cancer, yet they often report a lack of information and understanding about fertility impacts and preservation options. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and preliminary efficacy of Maybe Later Baby (MLB), an oncofertility information resource for AYAs diagnosed with cancer. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, 13 participants received MLB alone and 10 received an augmented intervention involving an additional consultation with a health care professional (HCP). Pre- and postintervention surveys and interviews explored participants' well-being, fertility knowledge, health literacy, and experiences using the resource. Results: Participants indicated that the resource was accessible and understandable and provided valuable information without increasing distress. When averaged across conditions, functional health literacy (p = 0.006) and oncofertility knowledge (p = 0.002) increased, although there were no significant changes in fertility-related emotions (p > 0.05), and quality of life decreased (p = 0.014). While qualitative accounts suggested that HCP consultations were useful and validated participants' experiences and concerns, participants receiving the augmented intervention became more nervous/fearful about fertility treatment (p = 0.005). There were no other differences in outcomes between conditions. Conclusions: Young people diagnosed with cancer want and value information about oncofertility and resources such as MLB are acceptable and useful means of providing this information. This could be supplemented by clinical discussion to ensure that tailored situation-specific information is provided and understood and patient distress is appropriately managed. Clinical Trial Registration number: 12615000624583.

LGBTQI cancer patients' quality of life and distress: A comparison by gender, sexuality, age, cancer type and geographical remoteness.

Background: There is growing acknowledgement of the psycho-social vulnerability of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people with cancer. The majority of research to date has focused on cisgender adults with breast or prostate cancer. Study Aim: This study examined psycho-social factors associated with distress and quality of life for LGBTQI cancer patients and survivors, across a range of sexualities and gender identities, intersex status, tumor types, ages and urban/rural/remote location using an intersectional theoretical framework. Method: 430 LGBTQI people with cancer completed an online survey, measuring distress, quality of life (QOL), and a range of psycho-social variables. Participants included 216 (50.2%) cisgender women, 145 (33.7%) cisgender men, and 63 (14.7%) transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people. Thirty-one (7.2%) participants reported intersex variation and 90 (20%) were adolescents or young adults (AYA), aged 15-39. The majority lived in urban areas (54.4%) and identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (73.7%), with 10.9% identifying as bisexual, and 10.5% as queer, including reproductive (32.4%) and non-reproductive (67.6%) cancers. Results: Forty-one percent of participants reported high or very high distress levels, 3-6 times higher than previous non-LGBTQI cancer studies. Higher rates of distress and lower QOL were identified in TGD compared to cisgender people, AYAs compared to older people, those who identify as bisexual or queer, compared to those who identify as lesbian, gay or homosexual, and those who live in rural or regional areas, compared to urban areas. Elevated distress and lower QOL was associated with greater minority stress (discrimination in life and in cancer care, discomfort being LGBTQI, lower outness) and lower social support, in these subgroups. There were no differences between reproductive and non-reproductive cancers. For the whole sample, distress and poor QOL were associated with physical and sexual concerns, the impact of cancer on gender and LGBTQI identities, minority stress, and lack of social support. Conclusion: LGBTQI people with cancer are at high risk of distress and impaired QOL. Research and oncology healthcare practice needs to recognize the diversity of LGBTQI communities, and the ways in which minority stress and lack of social support may affect wellbeing.

Co-designed, culturally tailored cervical screening education with migrant and refugee women in Australia: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Participation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) women from migrant and refugee backgrounds in cervical screening is crucial to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem within the next 20 years. However, CALD women report low participation in cervical screening. Barriers to participation can be addressed with culturally tailored, community-based programs. There is a need for research to explore the process, feasibility, acceptability and barriers to cultural tailoring in the delivery and evaluation of cervical screening health education. METHODS: CALD community health workers took part in a 2 day training program then co-designed, culturally tailored and co-facilitated cervical screening health promotion forums within their communities. Forums were delivered to a total of seven groups, involving 12 sessions and 71 CALD women. The forums were evaluated for feasibility, acceptability, implementation and effectiveness using a survey, interviews and observations. Data were collected from CALD women, facilitators and researchers. RESULTS: The co-design and co-delivery of cervical screening health promotion forums was time and resource intensive however allowed for deeper cultural tailoring resulting in engagement with 'hard to reach' CALD women, improved health literacy and intention to screen. Flexibility in the intervention implementation was crucial to ensure forums were responsive to community interests and needs. Online delivery of the forums in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was acceptable to most groups. CONCLUSIONS: Co-designed, culturally tailored cervical screening health promotion forums are feasible and acceptable to CALD women, in both face-to-face and online formats. Adjustments to the intervention protocol were recommended to improve future implementation.

"Surviving Discrimination by Pulling Together": LGBTQI Cancer Patient and Carer Experiences of Minority Stress and Social Support.

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people with cancer and their carers report poorer psychological outcomes than the general non-LGBTQI cancer population. There is growing acknowledgement that these health inequities can be explained by minority stress, which can be buffered by social support. Study Aim: To examine subjective experiences of minority stress and social support for LGBTQI people with cancer and their carers, drawing on qualitative findings from the Out with Cancer study. Method: An online survey including open ended items was completed by 430 LGBTQI cancer patients and 132 partners and other carers, representing a range of tumor types, sexual and gender identities, age and intersex status. A sub-sample of 104 patients and 31 carers completed an interview, with a follow-up photovoice activity and second interview completed by 45 patients and 10 carers. Data was thematically analysed using an intersectional theoretical framework. Results: Historical and present-day experiences of discrimination, violence, family rejection and exclusion created a legacy of distress and fear. This impacted on trust of healthcare professionals and contributed to distress and unmet needs in cancer survivorship and care. Social support, often provided by partners and other chosen family, including intimate partners and other LGBTQI people, buffered the negative impacts of minority stress, helping LGBTQI patients deal with cancer. However, some participants lacked support due to not having a partner, rejection from family of origin and lack of support within LGBTQI communities, increasing vulnerability to poor psychological wellbeing. Despite the chronic, cumulative impacts of minority stress, LGBTQI patients and carers were not passive recipients of discriminatory and exclusion in cancer care, demonstrating agency and resistance through collective action and advocacy. Conclusion: LGBTQI people have unique socio-political histories and present-day psycho-social experiences that contribute to distress during cancer. Social support serves to buffer and ameliorate this distress. There is a need for cancer healthcare professionals and support services to be aware of and responsive to these potential vulnerabilities, including the intersectional differences in experiences of minority stress and social support. There is also a need for recognition and facilitation of social support among LGBTQI people with cancer and their carers.

LGBTQI Inclusive Cancer Care: A Discourse Analytic Study of Health Care Professional, Patient and Carer Perspectives.

Background: Awareness of the specific needs of LGBTQI cancer patients has led to calls for inclusivity, cultural competence, cultural safety and cultural humility in cancer care. Examination of oncology healthcare professionals' (HCP) perspectives is central to identifying barriers and facilitators to inclusive LGBTQI cancer care. Study Aim: This study examined oncology HCPs perspectives in relation to LGBTQI cancer care, and the implications of HCP perspectives and practices for LGBTQI patients and their caregivers. Method: 357 oncology HCPs in nursing (40%), medical (24%), allied health (19%) and leadership (11%) positions took part in a survey; 48 HCPs completed an interview. 430 LGBTQI patients, representing a range of tumor types, sexual and gender identities, age and intersex status, and 132 carers completed a survey, and 104 LGBTQI patients and 31 carers undertook an interview. Data were analysed using thematic discourse analysis. Results: Three HCP subject positions - ways of thinking and behaving in relation to the self and LGBTQI patients - were identified:'Inclusive and reflective' practitioners characterized LGBTQI patients as potentially vulnerable and offered inclusive care, drawing on an affirmative construction of LGBTQI health. This resulted in LGBTQI patients and their carers feeling safe and respected, willing to disclose sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) status, and satisfied with cancer care. 'Egalitarian practitioners' drew on discourses of ethical responsibility, positioning themselves as treating all patients the same, not seeing the relevance of SOGI information. This was associated with absence of LGBTQI-specific information, patient and carer anxiety about disclosure of SOGI, feelings of invisibility, and dissatisfaction with healthcare. 'Anti-inclusive' practitioners' expressed open hostility and prejudice towards LGBTQI patients, reflecting a cultural discourse of homophobia and transphobia. This was associated with patient and carer distress, feelings of negative judgement, and exclusion of same-gender partners. Conclusion: Derogatory views and descriptions of LGBTQI patients, and cis-normative practices need to be challenged, to ensure that HCPs offer inclusive and affirmative care. Building HCP's communicative competence to work with LGBTQI patients needs to become an essential part of basic training and ongoing professional development. Visible indicators of LGBTQI inclusivity are essential, alongside targeted resources and information for LGBTQI people.

Attitudes, knowledge and practice behaviours of oncology health care professionals towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) patients and their carers: A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing recognition that health care professionals (HCPs) and policy makers are insufficiently equipped to provide culturally competent care to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) cancer patients and their families. We examined HCP attitudes, knowledge, and practices regarding LGBTQI cancer care using a mixed-methods research design. METHOD: Surveys were completed by 357 oncology HCPs in nursing (40%), medical (24%), allied health (19%), and clinical leadership roles (11%); 48 of the surveyed HCPs were interviewed. RESULTS: Most HCPs reported being comfortable treating LGBTQI patients, but reported low levels of confidence and knowledge and systemic barriers to LGBTQI cancer care. Most wanted more education and training, particularly on trans and gender-diverse people (TGD) and those born with intersex variations. CONCLUSION: Education of HCPs and health system changes are required to overcome barriers to the provision of culturally competent cancer care for LGBTQI patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These findings reinforce the need for inclusion of LGBTQI content in HCP education and professional training curricula, and institutional support for LGBTQI-inclusive practice behaviours. This includes administrative and visual cues to signal safety of LGBTQI patients within cancer care, facilitating inclusive environments, and the provision of tailored patient-centred care.

A randomized controlled evaluation of an educational resource to address fertility concerns after cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the acceptability and impact of a written oncofertility educational resource (ER), as a self-help intervention (SH), and as an adjunct to a one-hour health-care professional discussion (HP). METHODS: Within a randomized control trial (RCT), 194 adults with cancer (175 womens; 19 mens) were allocated to the SH or HP intervention. 127 completed 6-weeks post-intervention measures, a retention rate of 65.85%. RESULTS: Across interventions, the ER was rated as highly acceptable and useful, in terms of ease of understanding, and information. Heath literacy significantly increased post-intervention, including functional literacy, communicative literacy, and critical health literacy. There were no significant changes in ratings of fertility distress or general distress pre-post intervention. Quality of life was significantly reduced post intervention. Those in the HP condition reported higher quality of life and greater likelihood of communication with others about fertility, most notably with intimate partners, post-intervention. Qualitative identification of increased knowledge, confidence with communication and normalization of fertility concerns, reflects increased health literacy, and provides explanation for significant reductions in feeling nervous and fearful about fertility treatments post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the importance of information provision about the impact of cancer on fertility. Written ERs are a useful adjunct to a patient-clinician discussion, increasing health literacy, which facilitates knowledge, self-efficacy and management of fertility concerns and changes.

Talking but not always understanding: couple communication about infertility concerns after cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer related infertility can have an impact on couple relationships, with evidence that couple communication facilitates coping. However, little is known about the ways in which couples communicate about cancer-related fertility concerns. The aim of this article is to examine couple communication about fertility concerns in the context of cancer, and the perceived quality of such communication from the perspective of cancer survivors and their partners. METHODS: Eight-hundred and seventy-eight cancer survivors (693 women, 185 men) and 144 partners (82 women, 62 men), across a range of tumour types and age groups, completed a survey which examined cancer related fertility concerns. Seventy-eight survivors (61 women and 17 men), and 26 partners (13 women and 13 men), participated in semi-structured interviews, in order to examine the subjective experience of fertility concerns in-depth. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interviews and open ended survey questions. Valid percentages for single items from the relationships subscale of the Fertility Preservation Inventory (FPI) related to qualitative themes, identified frequency of responses. RESULTS: The major theme was 'talking but not always understanding". 89.6% of cancer survivors and partners (95.1%) reported working well together handling fertility questions (FPI), but agreed that communication could be improved (65.9% survivors; 65% partners). Open and honest couple communication was associated with feelings of support, understanding and relationship growth, including perception of partner comfort (79.2% survivors, 81.6% partners). However, 32% survivors and 31.1% partners concealed fertility concerns to avoid upsetting their partner, or reported that their partner doesn't understand their fertility concerns (survivors 25.5%, partners 14.6%), with 14.1% of cancer survivors and 19.4% partners reporting fear of relationship breakdown because of fertility issues. Fear of rejection when forming new relationships, and concerns about how to talk to future partners, was reported by non-partnered individuals. CONCLUSION: Health-care professionals should include partners of cancer survivors in fertility discussions. Couple interventions developed in general psycho-oncology should be extended to the domain of fertility, in order to facilitate effective couple communication. Communication in future relationships needs to be addressed for single people and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) who have fertility concerns.

Infertility After Cancer: How the Need to Be a Parent, Fertility-Related Social Concern, and Acceptance of Illness Influence Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) given a diagnosis of cancer who experience infertility concerns often report having poorer quality of life (QoL). However, the role of infertility-related stressors and illness acceptance on QoL is not clear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the impact of psychosocial factors surrounding cancer treatment and infertility on QoL. We hypothesized that need for parenthood and infertility-related social concerns would be directly related to QoL and indirectly related to QoL through acceptance of illness. METHODS: Cancer patients/survivors (n = 178; 75.3% female) aged 15 to 29 years completed measures of QoL, acceptance of illness, infertility-related social concerns, and need for parenthood. Path analysis was used to test the hypothesized and subsequent models to determine the best fit for predictors of QoL. RESULTS: The final model explained 28.36% of the variance in QoL. Lower infertility-related social concerns were directly and indirectly related to higher QoL scores. Need for parenthood did not directly relate to QoL, instead relating directly to increased infertility-related social concerns. Higher acceptance of illness (ß = .39) and older age (ß = .19) were directly related to higher QoL scores. Female patients had higher need for parenthood (ß = .17). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that social concerns and expectations surrounding infertility have a negative impact on AYA cancer survivors' and patients' QoL, which increases as AYAs approach socially normative parenting age. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Providing survivors with specialist support to manage their infertility-related social concerns and improve their acceptance of illness has the potential to improve their QoL.

The impact of cancer-related fertility concerns on current and future couple relationships: People with cancer and partner perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine how cancer-related fertility concerns impact on couple relationships from the perspectives of people with cancer (PWC) and partners of people with cancer. METHODS: A qualitative research design was used, drawing data from open-ended responses to a survey and in-depth individual interviews. Eight hundred and seventy-eight PWC (693 women, 185 men) and 144 partners (82 women, 62 men), across a range of tumour types and age groups, completed a survey, and 78 PWC (61 women and 17 men) and 26 partners (13 women and 13 men), participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified that many PWC and partners experience a 'double burden', manifested by cancer-related fertility concerns creating relational stress, changes to couple sexual intimacy and feelings of inadequacy when forming new relationships. However, many participants adopted strategies to facilitate coping with infertility or fertility concerns. This included acceptance of infertility and privileging of survival, focusing on relationship growth, optimism and nurturing in other ways. CONCLUSION: Cancer-related fertility concerns can have a significant impact on couple relationships. Psychological support from clinicians may facilitate couple coping, as well as help to address concerns about future relationships for un-partnered people with cancer.

Coverage of cancer services in Australia and providers' views on service gaps: findings from a national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increasing cancer prevalence and the evolving health service landscape across the public and private health sectors in Australia, this study aimed to map cancer services and identify factors associated with service provision and important service gaps. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional survey was conducted throughout 2016. Extensive search strategies identified Government or privately-owned, hospital or community-based healthcare organisations with dedicated cancer services. One nominated staff member from each organisation answered a purpose specific online/paper questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, standardised rates, and single level and multilevel multinomial logistic regression were used to analyse the data. Analysis was augmented with a qualitative descriptive analysis of open-ended questions. RESULTS: From the 295 eligible organisations with a cancer service in Australia, 93.2% participated in the survey. After adjusting for remoteness, for-profit companies were significantly more likely than Government operated services to provide only one or two types of cancer services (e.g. radiotherapy) in a limited range of settings (e.g. day hospital with no in-patient or home care) (p < 0.001) and less likely to provide comprehensive cancer services (p < 0.001). After adjusting for ownership and the respondent's role in the organisation, respondents located in remote regions of Australia were more likely to identify cancer services that are dependent upon specialist medical practitioners as the most important service gaps in their region (p = 0.003). Despite 76.0% of organisations across Australia offering some type of supportive care or survivorship services, providers identified this group of services as the most pressing service gaps in major cities, rural and remote regions alike (standardised rate: 47.9% (95%CI: 43.6-57.4%); p < .000). This included the need for improved integration, outreach and affordability. CONCLUSIONS: The broad range of cancer services, settings and ownership identified by this survey highlights the complexity of the Australian healthcare system that cancer survivors must navigate and the challenges of providing comprehensive cancer care particularly in rural and remote regions. Whilst the significant role of supportive care and survivorship services are increasingly being recognised, the findings from this survey support calls for innovative service models and funding mechanisms that expand the focus from preventing and treating cancer to supporting cancer survivors throughout the cancer continuum and promoting the delivery of integrated and equitable cancer care across the public and private sectors.

Infertility-related distress following cancer for women and men: A mixed method study.

OBJECTIVE: Infertility-related distress is recognised to be a long-term effect of cancer. There have been attempts to examine predictors of such distress, but there is inconsistency in the findings. This study examined the psychological impact of infertility-related distress in women and men cancer survivors, across age group, parity, cancer type, time since diagnosis, and relationship context; and the association of distress with acceptance of illness and relationship satisfaction. METHODS: 693 women and 185 men completed a self-report survey examining infertility-related distress (fertility problem inventory [FPI], acceptance of cancer (acceptance of illness scale [AIS]), psychological distress (Kessler psychological distress scale [K10]), quality of life (QoL) (ladder of life), and relationship satisfaction relationship assessment scale [RAS]); 61 women and 17 men took part in one-to-one interviews to examine subjective experiences of infertility distress. RESULTS: Infertility distress was positively correlated with psychological distress and negatively correlated with QoL, relationship satisfaction, and acceptance of cancer across gender, cancer type and stage, relationship status, and age. Women reported significantly higher infertility distress than men. In multiple regression analysis, unique statistical predictors of infertility distress for women were childlessness, cancer acceptance, and QoL. Childlessness and relationship satisfaction were unique predictors for men. Thematic analysis of interviews identified loss and grief, identity threat, relationship concerns or support, and acceptance of cancer and infertility as key themes. CONCLUSIONS: Concern about cancer-related infertility is associated with decrements in psychological well-being and QoL, particularly for those without children. Psychological support to address cancer-related infertility distress should acknowledge the different meanings of infertility across gender, and the impact of acceptance of cancer and relationship satisfaction.

Hope, burden or risk: a discourse analytic study of the construction and experience of fertility preservation in the context of cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Infertility is a significant concern for people with cancer and fertility preservation is often recommended. However, uptake of preservation interventions remains low. In this study, we examined how people with cancer construct their subjectivity - their sense of self - in relation to decision making and processes of fertility preservation. DESIGN: Six-hundred and ninety-three women and 185 men completed a self-report survey; 61 women and 17 men participated in semi-structured interviews. Subject positions adopted in relation to constructions of fertility preservation in transcripts and open-ended survey responses were examined using thematic decomposition. RESULTS: Three main discursive themes were identified: 'Limited agency and choice, or resisting risk: not taking part in fertility preservation', 'Fertility preservation as a means to retain hope and control', and 'Fertility preservation as uncertain and distressing'. CONCLUSION: It is important for health professionals to provide accurate information, acknowledge the complexity of fertility preservation and implications for 'liminal' survivorship where exclusion, uncertainty or unsuccessful interventions have occurred.