2019 Pediatric Initiative Network: Progress, proceedings, and plans

Impairment of fertility and sexual/reproductive health are common after oncologic therapy, and are known to have negative impacts on romantic relationships and psychosocial well-being among childhood cancer survivors. The Pediatric Initiative Network (PIN) is an international, multidisciplinary group of providers within the Oncofertility Consortium dedicated to preserving and protecting the fertility of children and adolescents at risk for infertility due to medical conditions or treatments. The PIN and its Best Practices and Research committees meet virtually throughout the year, with one annual in-person meeting. The purpose of this “proceedings” is to highlight key discussion points from the annual PIN meeting which took place on November 11, 2019, to 1) provide a context for pediatric groups across the country on what oncofertility programs are currently doing and why, and 2) inform stakeholders of past, present and future initiatives that may be of value to them and the patient populations they serve

Weight perceptions in older adults: findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

Objectives: To explore weight perceptions in a large, nationally-representative sample of older adults, and the extent to which they differ according to age and perceived health status. Setting: England. Participants: 5,240 men and women (≥50y) participating in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (2016/17). Main outcome measures: Weight perception was self-reported as too heavy, too light, or about right. Results: The majority of older adults endorsed a weight perception that matched their (objectively measured) BMI classification. However, one in ten (9.9%) older adults classified by BMI as normal-weight (18.5-24.9kg/m2) felt too light, with women at the upper end of the older age spectrum (OR=1.04, 95%CI=1.01-1.09), and men (OR=3.70, 95%CI=1.88-7.28) and women (OR=2.61, 95%CI=1.27-5.35) in poorer health more likely to do so. Almost half (44.8%) of older adults classified as overweight (25-29.9kg/m2) and one in ten (10.3%) classified as obese (≥30kg/m2) felt about the right weight, with this observed more frequently among men and women at the upper end of the older age spectrum (OR range 1.04-1.06). Conclusion: Older adults’ perceptions of their own weight generally correspond with traditional BMI cut-offs for normal-weight, overweight, and obesity. However, a substantial minority ‘underestimate’ their weight status, with those at the upper end of the age spectrum and those in poorer health more likely to do so

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

"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

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

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

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

The development of an international oncofertility competency framework: a model to increase oncofertility implementation

© AlphaMed Press 2019 Background: Despite international evidence about fertility preservation (FP), several barriers still prevent the implementation of equitable FP practice. Currently, oncofertility competencies do not exist. The aim of this study was to develop an oncofertility competency framework that defines the key components of oncofertility care, develops a model for prioritizing service development, and defines the roles that health care professionals (HCPs) play. Materials and Method: A quantitative modified Delphi methodology was used to conduct two rounds of an electronic survey, querying and synthesizing opinions about statements regarding oncofertility care with HCPs and patient and family advocacy groups (PFAs) from 16 countries (12 high and 4 middle income). Statements included the roles of HCPs and priorities for service development care across ten domains (communication, oncofertility decision aids, age-appropriate care, referral pathways, documentation, oncofertility training, reproductive survivorship care and fertility-related psychosocial support, supportive care, and ethical frameworks) that represent 33 different elements of care. Results: The first questionnaire was completed by 457 participants (332 HCPs and 125 PFAs). One hundred and thirty-eight participants completed the second questionnaire (122 HCPs and 16 PFAs). Consensus was agreed on 108 oncofertility competencies and the roles HCPs should play in oncofertility care. A three-tier service development model is proposed, with gradual implementation of different components of care. A total of 92.8% of the 108 agreed competencies also had agreement between high and middle income participants. Conclusion: FP guidelines establish best practice but do not consider the skills and requirements to implement these guidelines. The competency framework gives HCPs and services a structure for the training of HCPs and implementation of care, as well as defining a model for prioritizing oncofertility service development. Implications for Practice: Despite international evidence about fertility preservation (FP), several barriers still prevent the implementation of equitable FP practice. The competency framework gives 108 competencies that will allow health care professionals (HCPs) and services a structure for the development of oncofertility care, as well as define the role HCPs play to provide care and support. The framework also proposes a three-tier oncofertility service development model which prioritizes the development of components of oncofertility care into essential, enhanced, and expert services, giving clear recommendations for service development. The competency framework will enhance the implementation of FP guidelines, improving the equitable access to medical and psychological oncofertility care

Fertility preservation for male patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer:recommendations from the PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group

Item does not contain fulltextMale patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer are at an increased risk for infertility if their treatment adversely affects reproductive organ function. Future fertility is a primary concern of patients and their families. Variations in clinical practice are barriers to the timely implementation of interventions that preserve fertility. As part of the PanCareLIFE Consortium, in collaboration with the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group, we reviewed the current literature and developed a clinical practice guideline for fertility preservation in male patients who are diagnosed with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer at age 25 years or younger, including guidance on risk assessment and available methods for fertility preservation. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to grade the available evidence and to form the recommendations. Recognising the need for global consensus, this clinical practice guideline used existing evidence and international expertise to rigorously develop transparent recommendations that are easy to use to facilitate the care of male patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who are at high risk of fertility impairment and to enhance their quality of life

Fertility preservation for female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer:recommendations from the PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group

Female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer are at increased risk for fertility impairment when treatment adversely affects the function of reproductive organs. Patients and their families desire biological children but substantial variations in clinical practice guidelines reduce consistent and timely implementation of effective interventions for fertility preservation across institutions. As part of the PanCareLIFE Consortium, and in collaboration with the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group, we reviewed the current literature and developed a clinical practice guideline for fertility preservation in female patients who were diagnosed with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer at age 25 years or younger, including guidance on risk assessment and available methods for fertility preservation. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to grade the available evidence and to form the recommendations. This clinical practice guideline leverages existing evidence and international expertise to develop transparent recommendations that are easy to use to facilitate the care of female patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who are at high risk for fertility impairment. A complete review of the existing evidence, including a quality assessment, transparent reporting of the guideline panel's decisions, and achievement of global interdisciplinary consensus, is an important result of this intensive collaboration.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe