Observational study of the development and evaluation of a fertility preservation patient decision aid for teenage and adult women diagnosed with cancer: the Cancer, Fertility and Me research protocol

G L Jones, J Hughes, N Mahmoodi, D Greenfield, G Brauten-Smith, J Skull, J Gath, D Yeomanson, E Baskind, J A Snowden, R M Jacques, G Velikova, K Collins, D Stark, R Phillips, S Lane, H L Bekker, (On behalf of the Cancer, Fertility and Me research team), G L Jones, J Hughes, N Mahmoodi, D Greenfield, G Brauten-Smith, J Skull, J Gath, D Yeomanson, E Baskind, J A Snowden, R M Jacques, G Velikova, K Collins, D Stark, R Phillips, S Lane, H L Bekker, (On behalf of the Cancer, Fertility and Me research team)

Abstract

Introduction: Women diagnosed with cancer and facing potentially sterilising cancer treatment have to make time-pressured decisions regarding fertility preservation with specialist fertility services while undergoing treatment of their cancer with oncology services. Oncologists identify a need for resources enabling them to support women's fertility preservation decisions more effectively; women report wanting more specialist information to make these decisions. The overall aim of the 'Cancer, Fertility and Me' study is to develop and evaluate a new evidence-based patient decision aid (PtDA) for women with any cancer considering fertility preservation to address this unmet need.

Methods and analysis: This is a prospective mixed-method observational study including women of reproductive age (16 years +) with a new diagnosis of any cancer across two regional cancer and fertility centres in Yorkshire, UK. The research involves three stages. In stage 1, the aim is to develop the PtDA using a systematic method of evidence synthesis and multidisciplinary expert review of current clinical practice and patient information. In stage 2, the aim is to assess the face validity of the PtDA. Feedback on its content and format will be ascertained using questionnaires and interviews with patients, user groups and key stakeholders. Finally, in stage 3 the acceptability of using this resource when integrated into usual cancer care pathways at the point of cancer diagnosis and treatment planning will be evaluated. This will involve a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the PtDA in clinical practice. Measures chosen include using count data of the PtDAs administered in clinics and accessed online, decisional and patient-reported outcome measures and qualitative feedback. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics, paired sample t-tests and CIs; interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis.

Ethics and dissemination: Research Ethics Committee approval (Ref: 16/EM/0122) and Health Research Authority approval (Ref: 194751) has been granted. Findings will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences for academic and health professional audiences, with feedback to health professionals and program managers. The Cancer, Fertility and Me patient decision aid (PtDA) will be disseminated via a diverse range of open-access media, study and charity websites, professional organisations and academic sources. External endorsement will be sought from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration inventory of PtDAs and other relevant professional organisations, for example, the British Fertility Society.

Trial registration number: NCT02753296; pre-results.

Keywords: Cancer; Decision aid; Decision-making; Fertility preservation; Protocol.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Process flow chart for stage 3 evaluation study.

References

    1. Sasieni PD, Shelton J, Ormiston-Smith N et al. . What is the lifetime risk of developing cancer?: the effect of adjusting for multiple primaries. Br J Cancer 2011;105:460–5. 10.1038/bjc.2011.250
    1. Cancer Research UK. Cancer Stats for the UK (retrieved 26 Jan 2016). .
    1. Meirow D, Nugent D. The effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy on female reproduction. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7:535–43. 10.1093/humupd/7.6.535
    1. Meirow D, Biederman H, Anderson RA et al. . Toxicity of chemotherapy and radiation on female reproduction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2010;53:727–39. 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181f96b54
    1. Maltaris T, Seufert R, Fischl F et al. . The effect of cancer treatment on female fertility and strategies for preserving fertility. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;130:148–55. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.08.006
    1. Peate M, Meiser B, Hickey M et al. . The fertility-related concerns, needs and preferences of younger women with breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;116:215–23. 10.1007/s10549-009-0401-6
    1. Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH et al. . American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol Res 2006;24:2917–31. 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5888
    1. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: a committee opinion Fertil Steril 2013;100:1224–3.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cryopreservation to preserve fertility in people diagnosed with cancer. (accessed 26 Jan 2016).
    1. Breast cancer care study ‘Standards of Care for Younger Women; Results from the survey of healthcare professionals’ by Grete Brauten- Smith and Jennifer Finnegan-John. (accessed 26 Jan 2016).
    1. Dow KH, Kuhn D. Fertility options in young breast cancer survivors: a review of the literature. Oncol Nurs Forum 2004;31:E46–53. 10.1188/04.ONF.E46-E53
    1. Goossens J, Delbaere I, Van Lancker A et al. . Cancer patients’ and professional caregivers’ needs, preferences and factors associated with receiving and providing fertility-related information: a mixed-methods systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2014;51: 300–19. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.06.015
    1. Gonçalves V, Sehovic I, Quinn G. Childbearing attitudes and decisions of young breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:279–92. 10.1093/humupd/dmt039
    1. Holton BA, Kirkman M, Rowe H et al. . The childbearing concerns and related information needs and preferences of women of reproductive age with a chronic, noncommunicable health condition: a systematic review. Womens Health Issues 2014;22:e541–52. 10.1016/j.whi.2012.08.001
    1. Howard-Anderson J, Ganz PA, Bower JE et al. . Quality of life, fertility concerns, and behavioural health outcomes in younger breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012;104:386–405 10.1093/jnci/djr541
    1. Jensen JR, Morbeck DE, Coddington CC. Fertility preservation. Mayo Clinical Procedure 2011;86:45–9. 10.4065/mcp.2010.0564
    1. Loren AW, Mangu PB, Beck LN et al. . Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:2500–10. 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.2678
    1. Quinn GP, Murphy D, Knapp C et al. . Who decides? Decision making and fertility preservation in teens with cancer: a review of the literature. J Adolesc Health 2011;49:337–46. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.01.005
    1. Schmidt R, Richter D, Sender A et al. . Motivations for having children after cancer--a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2016;25:6–17. 10.1111/ecc.12276
    1. Sobota A, Ozakinci G. Fertility and parenthood issues in young female cancer patients—a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv 2014;8:707–21. 10.1007/s11764-014-0388-9
    1. Penrose R, Beatty L, Mattiske J et al. . The psychosocial impact of cancer-related infertility on women. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2012;17:188–93. 10.1188/13.CJON.188-193
    1. Tschudin S, Bitzer J. Psychological aspects of fertility preservation in men and women affected by cancer and other life-threatening diseases. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:587–97. 10.1093/humupd/dmp015
    1. Zdenkowski N, Butow P, Tesson S et al. . Systematic review of decision aids for patients making a decision about treatment for early breast cancer. Breast 2016;26:31–45. 10.1016/j.breast.2015.12.007
    1. Lee MC, Gray J, Han HS et al. . Fertility and reproductive considerations in female premenopausal patients with breast cancer. Cancer Control 2010;17:162–72.
    1. Jones GL, Hughes J, Mahmoodi N et al. . What factors influence the decision-making process for women with cancer contemplating fertility preservation? A systematic review. RCOG World Congress: Birmingham, UK Abstract, July 2016.
    1. Jones GL, Hughes J, Greenfield D et al. . What factors influence the fertility preservation treatment decision-making process in women with cancer? the qualitative findings of the PreFer study. European Shared Medical Decision Making conferences, London, UK: Abstract, July 2016.
    1. Wilkes S, Coulson S, Crosland A et al. . Experience of fertility preservation among younger people diagnosed with cancer. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2010;13:151–8. 10.3109/14647273.2010.503359
    1. Duffy C, Allen SM, Dube C et al. . Oncologists’ confidence in knowledge of fertility issues for young women with cancer. J Cancer Educ 2012;27:369–76. 10.1007/s13187-011-0304-1
    1. Adams E, Hill E, Watson E. Fertility Preservation in Cancer Survivors: a national survey of oncologists’ current knowledge, practice and attitudes. Br J Cancer 2013;108:1602–15. 10.1038/bjc.2013.139
    1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ et al. . Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;5:CD001431.
    1. Bekker HL, Winterbottom AE, Butow P et al. . Do personal stories make patient decision aids more effective: a critical review of evidence and theory? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13(Suppl 2):S9 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S9
    1. Rothert ML, Holmes-Rovner M, Rovner D et al. . An educational intervention as decision support for menopausal women. Res Nurs Health 1997;20:377–87. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199710)20:5<377::AID-NUR2>;2-L
    1. O'Connor A, Edwards AG. The role of decision aids in promoting evidence-based patient choice In: Edwards AG, Elwyn G, eds Evidence-based patient choice: inevitable or impossible? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001:220–43.
    1. Bekker HL, Thornton JG, Airey CM et al. . Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:1–156.
    1. Mahmoodi N, Bekker HL, King N et al. . Decision aids’ efficacy to support women's fertility preservation choices before cancer treatment: an environmental scan. European Society of Medical Decision Making Society Bi-Annual Conference. London: UK June 2016.
    1. Peate M, Meiser B, Friedlander M et al. . Development and pilot testing of a fertility decision aid for young women diagnosed with early breast cancer. Breast J 2011;17:112–14. 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.01033.x
    1. Garvelink MM, ter Kuile MM, Fischer MJ et al. . Development of a decision aid about fertility preservation for women with breast cancer in The Netherlands. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol 2013;34:170–8. 10.3109/0167482X.2013.851663
    1. Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J et al. . A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13(Suppl 2):S2 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2
    1. Winterbottom AE, Gavaruzzi T, Bekker HL. Patient acceptability of the Yorkshire Dialysis Decision Aid (YoDDA) Booklet: a prospective non-randomised comparison study across 6 predialysis services. Pert Dial Int 2016;36:374–81. 10.3747/pdi.2014.00274
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S et al. . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655 10.1136/bmj.a1655
    1. Purva Abhyankar P, Volk RJ, Blumenthal-Barby J et al. . Balancing the presentation of information and options in patient decision aids: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13(Suppl 2):S6 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S6
    1. Stalmeier P, Volk RJ, Abhyankar P et al. . Balancing the presentation of information and options In: Volk R, Llewellyn-Thomas H eds. Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's background document. Chapter I, 2012. (accessed 20 Mar 2016)
    1. Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A et al. . A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Evaluation Clin Pract 2006;12:13–23. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00596.x
    1. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A et al. . Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13(Suppl 2):S7 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7
    1. Barratt A, Trevena L, Davey HM et al. . Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening. BMJ 2004;329:507–10. 10.1136/bmj.329.7464.507
    1. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Tugwell P et al. . Incorporating patient values In: DiCenso A, Guyatt G, Ciliska D, eds. Evidence-based nursing: a guide to clinical practice. Toronto: Mosby, 2005;490–507.
    1. Fagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P et al. . Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13(Suppl 2):S8 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S8
    1. Ley P, Florio T. The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med 1996;1:7–28. 10.1080/13548509608400003
    1. Leventhal H, Diefenbach M, Leventhal EA. Illness cognition: using common sense to understand treatment adherence and affect cognition interactions. Cognit Ther Res 1992;16:143–63. 10.1007/BF01173486
    1. Leventhal H, Benyamini Y, Bownlee S et al. . Illness Representations: Theoretical Foundations In: Petrie KJ, Weinman JA, eds. Perceptions of health and illness: current research and applications. The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publisher, 1997;19–46.
    1. Doak LG, Doak CC, Meade CD. Strategies to improve cancer education materials. Oncol Nurse Forum 1996;23:1305–12.
    1. Knapp CA, Quinn GP, Murphy DM. Assessing the reproductive concerns of children and adolescents with cancer: challenges and potential solutions. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 2011;1:31–5. 10.1089/jayao.2010.0003
    1. Quinn P, Vadaparampil ST, Sehovic I et al. . Patient and Family Tools to Aid in Education and decision Making About Oncofertility In: Woodruff TK, Clayman ML, Waimey KE, eds. Oncofertility communication: sharing information and building relationships across disciplines. Springer: New York, 2014;35–47.
    1. Jones G, Kennedy S, Barnard A et al. . Development of an endometriosis quality-of-life instrument: the endometriosis health profile-30. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:258–64.
    1. The British Psychological Society. Professional Practice Guidelines 1995. Report Leicester, UK, 2001. (accessed 22 Jun 2016).
    1. Bennett C, Graham ID, Kristjansson E et al. . Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns 2010;78:130–3. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.012
    1. Moores KL, Jones GL, Radley SC. Development of an instrument to measure face validity, feasibility and utility of patient questionnaire use during health care: the QQ-10. Int J Qual Health Care 2012;24:517–24. 10.1093/intqhc/mzs051
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res in Psychol 2006;3:77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    1. Elwyn G, Scholl I, Tietbohl C et al. . ‘Many miles to go…’: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13(Suppl 2):S14 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S14
    1. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Patient Decision Aids Research Group. 2014. (accessed 27 Jan 2016).
    1. Marteau TM, Bekker HL. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992;31(Pt 3):301–6. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x
    1. The Euroqol Group. Euroqol- a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality-of-life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
    1. O'Connor AM. Stage of decision making. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2000. (Accessed 27 Jan 2016).
    1. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995;15:25–30. 10.1177/0272989X9501500105
    1. Chamberlain K. Using grounded theory in health psychology In: Murray M, Chamberlain K, eds. Qualitative health psychology. London: Sage, 1999:183–201.
    1. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Los Angeles: Sage, 1994.
    1. Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ et al. . Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making 2003;23:281–92. 10.1177/0272989X03256005
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L, O'Connor W. Carrying out qualitative analysis In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, eds. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2003: 220–62.
    1. Elwyn G, Kreuwel I, Durand MA et al. . How to develop web-based decision support interventions for patients: a process map. Patient Educ Couns 2011;82:260–5. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.04.034

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren