Meghan Bowman-Curci1, Gwendolyn P Quinn2,3, Joyce Reinecke4, Richard R Reich5, Susan T Vadaparampil6,7. 1. Health Outcomes and Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, 4115 East Fowler Ave, MFC-CRISP, Tampa, FL, 33617, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Population Health and Center for Medical Ethics, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Alliance for Fertility Preservation, Lafayette, CA, USA. 5. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resouce, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. 6. Health Outcomes and Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, 4115 East Fowler Ave, MFC-CRISP, Tampa, FL, 33617, USA. susan.vadaparampil@moffitt.org. 7. Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. susan.vadaparampil@moffitt.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) created guidelines to facilitate implementation of fertility preservation (FP) discussions and referrals for adolescent and young adult patients. We assessed if availability of workplace FP resources and referral policies differed among learners in the Educating Nurses about Reproductive Health in Cancer Healthcare (ENRICH) training program based on NCCN membership. METHODS: Learners completed a baseline application, including demographic information and the availability of FP resources and referral policies. Learners were categorized as either NCCN members or non-members and chi-square tests compared resources between the two groups. RESULTS: Learners from NCCN institutions reported the highest rates of established FP referral guidelines (p < .01), reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist (REI) on staff (p < .01), partnerships with REI, educational materials for staff (p < .05), and patients (p < .01). CONCLUSION: FP resources and referral policies were highest among learners from NCCN member institutions, but areas for development with fertility issues still exist and learners from non-member institutions may assist their workplaces in improving rates of discussions and referrals based on their ENRICH training. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The variation of available resources and referral policies between groups suggests more FP education and training; focusing on implementation programs is needed to make steps towards impactful institutional level resources and policies.
PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) created guidelines to facilitate implementation of fertility preservation (FP) discussions and referrals for adolescent and young adult patients. We assessed if availability of workplace FP resources and referral policies differed among learners in the Educating Nurses about Reproductive Health in Cancer Healthcare (ENRICH) training program based on NCCN membership. METHODS: Learners completed a baseline application, including demographic information and the availability of FP resources and referral policies. Learners were categorized as either NCCN members or non-members and chi-square tests compared resources between the two groups. RESULTS: Learners from NCCN institutions reported the highest rates of established FP referral guidelines (p < .01), reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist (REI) on staff (p < .01), partnerships with REI, educational materials for staff (p < .05), and patients (p < .01). CONCLUSION: FP resources and referral policies were highest among learners from NCCN member institutions, but areas for development with fertility issues still exist and learners from non-member institutions may assist their workplaces in improving rates of discussions and referrals based on their ENRICH training. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The variation of available resources and referral policies between groups suggests more FP education and training; focusing on implementation programs is needed to make steps towards impactful institutional level resources and policies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Communication skills; Education; Fertility; Quality of life; Resources
Authors: Angela K Lawson; Susan C Klock; Mary Ellen Pavone; Jennifer Hirshfeld-Cytron; Kristin N Smith; Ralph R Kazer Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2015
Authors: Susan T Vadaparampil; Clement K Gwede; Cathy Meade; Joanne Kelvin; Richard R Reich; Joyce Reinecke; Meghan Bowman; Ivana Sehovic; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-05-17
Authors: Joyce D Reinecke; Joanne F Kelvin; Sarah R Arvey; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Jennifer Levine; Lindsay N Beck; Andy Miller Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Rebecca G Block; Marla L Clayman; Joanne Kelvin; Sarah R Arvey; Ji-Hyun Lee; Joyce Reinecke; Ivana Sehovic; Paul B Jacobsen; Damon Reed; Luis Gonzalez; Susan T Vadaparampil; Christine Laronga; M Catherine Lee; Julio Pow-Sang; Susan Eggly; Anna Franklin; Bijal Shah; William J Fulp; Brandon Hayes-Lattin Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Richard A Anderson; Annette Weddell; Helen A Spoudeas; Carolyn Douglas; Stephen M Shalet; Gill Levitt; W Hamish B Wallace Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Susan T Vadaparampil; Ji-Hyun Lee; Paul B Jacobsen; Gerold Bepler; Johnathan Lancaster; David L Keefe; Terrance L Albrecht Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer E Mersereau; Linnea R Goodman; Allison M Deal; Jessica R Gorman; Brian W Whitcomb; H Irene Su Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John M Salsman; Betina Yanez; Mallory A Snyder; Alexis R Avina; Marla L Clayman; Kristin N Smith; Khouri Purnell; David Victorson Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 3.359