Fertility Programs May Improve Patient Satisfaction in Cancer Care Setting
Improvements in patient satisfaction from information received may be indicative of the potential for fertility programs in cancer care settings.
Improvements in patient satisfaction with information received may be indicative of the potential for fertility programs in cancer care settings to improve the quality of clinician-patient discussions about fertility, according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.1
Researchers led by Joanne Kelvin, MSN, RN, CNS, AOCN, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, NY, conducted retrospective, cross-sectional surveys of patients at a large cancer center in order to determine the efficacy of a cancer and fertility program that enabled discussion of treatment-related fertility risks and preservation options.
Among the 2 cohorts – cohort 1, which included 150 men and 271 women and assessed patient satisfaction before program initiation, and cohort 2, which included 120 men and 320 women and assessed satisfaction after initiation – most respondents were 2-years post-diagnosis. The most frequently reported cancers were testicular, breast, and lymphoma.
They found a significant difference in patient satisfaction with the amount of information received between the 2 cohort groups. For men, satisfaction with information on fertility risk was high in both cohorts but significantly greater in the second cohort group for information on sperm banking.
RELATED: New Tool Connects Clinicians and Patients With Fertility Clinics
For women, satisfaction with information was found to be significantly greater in the second cohort group for information on fertility risks, fertility preservation options, help with decision-making, and finding a reproductive endocrinologist.
They also found that 96% of men and 99% of women found information materials to be helpful.
- Kelvin JF, Thom B, Benedict C, et al. Cancer and fertility program improves patient satisfaction with information received [published online ahead of print April 4, 2016]. J Clin Oncol. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.5168.