ABSTRACT
International and national oncofertility networks, including the US-led Oncofertility Consortium, FertiProtekt, and the Danish Network, have played pivotal roles in advancing the discipline of oncofertility over the last decade. Many other countries lack a shared approach to pediatric oncofertility health service delivery. This study aims to describe baseline oncofertility practices at Australian New Zealand Children's Haematology/Oncology Group centers in 2019-2021, describe binational priorities for care, and propose a 5-year action plan for best practice to be implemented by the newly formed Australian New Zealand Consortium in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults (CAYA) Oncofertility (ANZCO).
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Neoplasms , Humans , Adolescent , New Zealand , Fertility Preservation/methods , Child , Neoplasms/therapy , Neoplasms/complications , Young Adult , Female , Australia , Male , AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Elective egg freezing decisions are complex. We developed a Decision Aid for elective egg freezing and conducted a phase 1 study to evaluate its acceptability and utility for decision-making. METHODS: The online Decision Aid was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards and evaluated using a pre/post survey design. Twenty-six Australian women aged 18-45 years, interested in receiving elective egg freezing information, proficient in English, and with access to the internet were recruited using social media and university newsletters. Main outcomes were: acceptability of the Decision Aid; feedback on the Decision Aid design and content; concern raised by the Decision Aid, and; utility of the Decision Aid as measured by scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale and on a study-specific scale assessing knowledge about egg freezing and age-related infertility. RESULTS: Most participants found the Decision Aid acceptable (23/25), balanced (21/26), useful for explaining their options (23/26), and for reaching a decision (18/26). Almost all reported satisfaction with the Decision Aid (25/26) and the level of guidance it provided (25/26). No participant reported serious concerns about the Decision Aid, and most would recommend it to other women considering elective egg freezing (22/26). Median Decisional Conflict Scale score decreased from 65/100 (Interquartile range: 45-80) pre-Decision Aid to 7.5/100 (Interquartile range: 0-37.5) post-Decision Aid review (p < 0.001). Median knowledge score increased from 8.5/14 (Interquartile range: 7-11) pre-Decision Aid to 11/14 (Interquartile range: 10-12) post-Decision Aid review (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This elective egg freezing Decision Aid appears acceptable and useful for decision-making. It improved knowledge, reduced decisional conflict and did not raise serious concerns. The Decision Aid will be further evaluated using a prospective randomised control trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: ACTRN12618001685202 (retrospectively registered: 12 October 2018).
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Humans , Female , Decision Support Techniques , Prospective Studies , Australia , KnowledgeABSTRACT
PURPOSE: With over 80% of paediatric and adolescent cancer patients surviving into adulthood, quality-of-life issues such as future fertility are increasingly important. However, little is known about regret around decisions to pursue or forgo fertility preservation (FP). We investigated the risk of decision regret in families involved in making a FP decision and explored contributive factors. METHODS: Parents and patients ≥ 15 years were invited to participate. Participants completed a 10-item survey, including a validated Decision Regret Scale. Scores ≥ 30 indicated high regret. Free-text response items allowed participants to provide reasons for satisfaction or regret. RESULTS: A total of 108 parents and 30 patients participated. Most (81.4%) reported low regret (mean score 13.7). On multivariate analysis, predictors of low regret included having a FP procedure and a fertility discussion pre-treatment. Most participants believed that FP offers hope for future fertility. Some reported dissatisfaction with the process of decision-making. CONCLUSION: Overall levels of regret in the study population were low, with factors associated with quality, timely discussion and belief in the success of FP technology being predictors of low regret. However, dissatisfaction with the decision-making process itself revealed that refinements to the programme are required to meet families' needs.
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation/psychology , Neoplasms , Personal Satisfaction , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emotions , Female , Fertility Preservation/methods , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/therapy , Parents , Young AdultSubject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Neoplasms , Humans , Australia , Neoplasms/therapy , Guidelines as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Future infertility is a significant concern for survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer. Children and adolescents may have the opportunity to undergo fertility preservation (FP) procedures (which preserve gonadal tissue or gametes for future use) prior to the cancer treatment. However, the decision is very complex, as it is often made by parents as proxy decision makers at the time of cancer diagnosis, and is time-sensitive (needing to occur before the cancer treatment begins). Furthermore, FP procedures in children and adolescents are experimental and cannot guarantee future fertility. An uninformed decision may result in future decision regret. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the acceptability, usability, and feasibility of a Web-based FP decision aid (DA) in parents of children and adolescents with cancer and clinicians. Fertility knowledge and decision regret were compared in families who reviewed the DA compared with those who did not. METHODS: The Web-based DA was developed according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. A cross-sectional study of parents of patients with cancer, who discussed fertility, and clinicians at a tertiary children's hospital was undertaken. The acceptability, usability, and feasibility of the DA were assessed using a pre-post survey design. Measures included the validated Decision Regret Scale, a purpose-designed fertility-related knowledge scale, questions regarding satisfaction with the DA, and open-ended responses for additional feedback. Furthermore, clinicians involved in FP were also invited to review the DA. RESULTS: We enrolled 34 parents and 11 clinicians in this study. Participants who reviewed the DA (15 parents and 11 clinicians) expressed satisfaction with its content and functionality. Parents reported an improved understanding of cancer treatments, infertility, and FP procedures and did not report greater decision regret after DA review. Most parents (13/15, 86%) would recommend the DA to other parents. All clinicians had a consensus that this was a valid and relevant information source for all involved in fertility care. CONCLUSIONS: It is an international standard of care to discuss the impact of cancer treatment on fertility before cancer treatment. This is the first fertility DA for parents of children and adolescents with cancer and is found to be relevant and acceptable by parents and clinicians. This DA has the potential to help support parents to make informed fertility-related decisions for their children and adolescents. However, future research is needed to assess the impact of the DA on prospective decision making.