Search

PURPOSE: In the accompanying article, "Analysis of Fertility Preservation Options Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe," we showed that specific fertility preservation services may not be offered at various sites around the world because of cultural and legal barriers. We assessed global and regional experiences as well as the legal status of third-party reproduction and adoption to serve as a comprehensive international data set and resource for groups that wish to begin oncofertility interventions. METHODS: We provide data on the legalities of third-party assisted reproductive technologies and other family-building options in the 28 oncofertility-practicing countries surveyed. RESULTS: We found regional and country differences that will be important in the development of tailored resources for physicians and for patient brochures that are sensitive to these local restrictions and cultural norms. CONCLUSION: Because many patients first consult Web-based materials, the formal assessment of the availability of these options provides members of the global oncofertility community with data to which they might otherwise not have ready access to better serve their patients.

© 2019, Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Background: Beers Criteria are one of the best known explicit criteria to identify inappropriate medication in elderly that can be used in medication review. The access to patients’ medical records may be different among healthcare professionals and settings and, subsequently, the identification of patients’ diagnoses may be compromised. Objective: To assess the consequences of ignoring patient diagnoses when applying 2015 Beers Criteria to identify potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). Setting: Three nursing homes in Central Portugal. Method: Medical records of nursing home residents over 65 years old were appraised to identify medication profile and medical conditions. 2015 Beers Criteria were used with and without considering patients’ diagnoses. To compare the number of PIM and PIM-qualifying criteria complied in these two judgements, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed. Main outcome measure: Number of PIMs and number of PIM-qualifying criteria. Results: A total of 185 patients with a mean age of 86.7 years (SD = 7.8) with a majority of female (70.3%) were studied. When assessing the patients with full access to the diagnoses, median number of PIMs was 4 (IQR 0–10) and number of PIM-qualifying criteria was 5 (IQR 0–15). When evaluating only patient current medication, median number of PIMs was 4 (IQR 0–10) and PIM-qualifying criteria was 4 (IQR 0–12). Statistical difference was found in the number of PIM-qualifying criteria identified (p < 0.001), but not in the number of PIMs per patient (p = 0.090). In 171 patients (92.4%) PIMs identified were identical when using or ignoring their medical diagnoses. However, in 80 patients (43.2%) the PIM-qualifying criteria complied were different with and without access to patient diagnoses. Conclusion: Although restricted access to patients’ diagnoses may limit the judgement of Beers PIM-qualifying criteria, this limitation had no effect on the number of PIM identified.

© 2019, Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Background: Beers Criteria are one of the best known explicit criteria to identify inappropriate medication in elderly that can be used in medication review. The access to patients’ medical records may be different among healthcare professionals and settings and, subsequently, the identification of patients’ diagnoses may be compromised. Objective: To assess the consequences of ignoring patient diagnoses when applying 2015 Beers Criteria to identify potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). Setting: Three nursing homes in Central Portugal. Method: Medical records of nursing home residents over 65 years old were appraised to identify medication profile and medical conditions. 2015 Beers Criteria were used with and without considering patients’ diagnoses. To compare the number of PIM and PIM-qualifying criteria complied in these two judgements, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed. Main outcome measure: Number of PIMs and number of PIM-qualifying criteria. Results: A total of 185 patients with a mean age of 86.7 years (SD = 7.8) with a majority of female (70.3%) were studied. When assessing the patients with full access to the diagnoses, median number of PIMs was 4 (IQR 0–10) and number of PIM-qualifying criteria was 5 (IQR 0–15). When evaluating only patient current medication, median number of PIMs was 4 (IQR 0–10) and PIM-qualifying criteria was 4 (IQR 0–12). Statistical difference was found in the number of PIM-qualifying criteria identified (p < 0.001), but not in the number of PIMs per patient (p = 0.090). In 171 patients (92.4%) PIMs identified were identical when using or ignoring their medical diagnoses. However, in 80 patients (43.2%) the PIM-qualifying criteria complied were different with and without access to patient diagnoses. Conclusion: Although restricted access to patients’ diagnoses may limit the judgement of Beers PIM-qualifying criteria, this limitation had no effect on the number of PIM identified.

Purpose Oncofertility focuses on providing fertility and endocrine-sparing options to patients who undergo life-preserving but gonadotoxic cancer treatment. The resources needed to meet patient demand often are fragmented along disciplinary lines. We quantify assets and gaps in oncofertility care on a global scale. Methods Survey-based questionnaires were provided to 191 members of the Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network, a National Institutes of Health–funded organization. Responses were analyzed to measure trends and regional subtleties about patient oncofertility experiences and to analyze barriers to care at sites that provide oncofertility services. Results Sixty-three responses were received (response rate, 25%), and 40 were analyzed from oncofertility centers in 28 countries. Thirty of 40 survey results (75%) showed that formal referral processes and psychological care are provided to patients at the majority of sites. Fourteen of 23 respondents (61%) stated that some fertility preservation services are not offered because of cultural and legal barriers. The growth of oncofertility and its capacity to improve the lives of cancer survivors around the globe relies on concentrated efforts to increase awareness, promote collaboration, share best practices, and advocate for research funding. Conclusion This survey reveals global and regional successes and challenges and provides insight into what is needed to advance the field and make the discussion of fertility preservation and endocrine health a standard component of the cancer treatment plan. As the field of oncofertility continues to develop around the globe, regular assessment of both international and regional barriers to quality care must continue to guide process improvements.

PURPOSE: Oncofertility focuses on providing fertility and endocrine-sparing options to patients who undergo life-preserving but gonadotoxic cancer treatment. The resources needed to meet patient demand often are fragmented along disciplinary lines. We quantify assets and gaps in oncofertility care on a global scale. METHODS: Survey-based questionnaires were provided to 191 members of the Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network, a National Institutes of Health-funded organization. Responses were analyzed to measure trends and regional subtleties about patient oncofertility experiences and to analyze barriers to care at sites that provide oncofertility services. RESULTS: Sixty-three responses were received (response rate, 25%), and 40 were analyzed from oncofertility centers in 28 countries. Thirty of 40 survey results (75%) showed that formal referral processes and psychological care are provided to patients at the majority of sites. Fourteen of 23 respondents (61%) stated that some fertility preservation services are not offered because of cultural and legal barriers. The growth of oncofertility and its capacity to improve the lives of cancer survivors around the globe relies on concentrated efforts to increase awareness, promote collaboration, share best practices, and advocate for research funding. CONCLUSION: This survey reveals global and regional successes and challenges and provides insight into what is needed to advance the field and make the discussion of fertility preservation and endocrine health a standard component of the cancer treatment plan. As the field of oncofertility continues to develop around the globe, regular assessment of both international and regional barriers to quality care must continue to guide process improvements.