https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9937-0743
Figures
Abstract
Many childhood cancer survivors desire biological children but are at risk for infertility after treatment. One option for mitigating risk is the use of fertility preservation prior to gonadotoxic therapy. Adolescents and emerging adults may rely on their parents to help them decide whether to use fertility preservation. While this is often a collaborative process, it is currently unknown how parents can optimally support adolescents and emerging adults through this decision. To address this gap, we developed a family-centered, psychoeducational intervention to prompt adolescents and emerging adults to reflect on their future parenthood goals and attitudes towards fertility preservation, as well as to prompt their parents (or other caregivers) to reflect on their own and their child’s perspectives on the topic. In this randomized controlled trial, families will be randomized to either the standard of care control group (fertility consult) or the intervention group. After their fertility consult, adolescents and emerging adults and parents in the intervention group will complete a fertility preservation values clarification tool and then participate in a guided conversation about their responses and the fertility preservation decision. The primary expected outcome of this study is that participation in the intervention will increase the use of fertility preservation. The secondary expected outcome is an improvement in decision quality. Chi-square analyses and t-tests will evaluate primary and secondary outcomes. The goal of this intervention is to optimize family-centered fertility preservation decision-making in the context of a new cancer diagnosis to help male adolescents and emerging adults achieve their future parenthood goals.
Citation: Stanek C, Theroux CI, Olsavsky AL, Hill KN, Rausch JR, O’Brien SH, et al. (2022) Study protocol for fertility preservation discussions and decisions: A family-centered psychoeducational intervention for male adolescents and emerging adults newly diagnosed with cancer and their families. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0263886. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263886
Editor: Thomas Phillips, Public Library of Science, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: January 21, 2022; Accepted: January 27, 2022; Published: February 16, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Stanek et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: 1. LN; K08CA237338; The National Cancer Institutes of Health; https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/training/funding/k08; The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 2. LN; UL1TR002733; National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; https://ncats.nih.gov/; The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Childhood cancer survival rates are on the rise, with 5-year survival rates now exceeding 80% [1,2]. As these rates increase, there is a growing number of children who will enter adulthood at-risk for a variety of late effects resulting from cancer treatment, including infertility [3]. Nearly 50% of male childhood cancer survivors experience fertility impairment as a result of adjuvant therapy [4–7], which can negatively impact quality of life and psychosocial functioning [8–13]. Many male adolescents and emerging adults (AEAs) with cancer desire biological parenthood; in a recent study, biological parenthood was viewed as a “top 3” life goal [14,15]. Sperm banking is a safe and effective pre-treatment fertility preservation (FP) method for AEA males to protect their ability to have a biological child in the future. However, only around 25% of pubertal males choose to bank sperm prior to treatment at many pediatric centers [11,16–19], which is concerning given that survivors often regret missed FP opportunities later in life [8–13].
The FP decision-making process can be challenging for AEAs and their families given the sensitivity of the topic, physical and psychological implications of a new cancer diagnosis, and the limited time to make FP decisions (sometimes as little as 12–24 hours) [17,20–23]. Parents are often unaware of their child’s future parenthood goals [24], withhold their own perspectives about FP [25], and frequently defer the FP decision to their son [26]. Given that AEAs are developmentally limited in their ability to engage in future-oriented thinking [27], research has shown that parents (especially fathers) play a key role in sperm banking decision-making [28–30]. Specifically, when parents encourage the use of FP, AEAs are more likely to attempt FP [29–31].
With the goal of facilitating FP decision-making during a new cancer diagnosis, our research team developed a novel family-centered FP values clarification tool (Family-centered Adolescent Sperm banking values clarification Tool, FAST) [32]. The tool was based on the Health Belief Model which illustrates how certain health beliefs and individual characteristics influence human behavior [33]. The Health Belief Model is incorporated into the intervention to assess key constructs, such as perceived risk for infertility, barriers to FP, and perceived benefits to FP. Research has shown that the Health Belief Model can be effective in predicting FP utilization [34,35], and sperm banking rates at our center doubled from 30% to 60% after implementation of this tool [32]. Further, when parents were concordant with their son’s fertility values and goals, AEAs were more likely to attempt FP [36]. One month after the FP decision, both FP attempters and non-attempters expressed short-term satisfaction with their decision, but FP non-attempters expressed the potential for future regret about the decision not to use FP [37].
These findings informed the development of our family-centered psychoeducational intervention, which involves offering a refined version of the FAST and a brief, facilitated family discussion based on their responses. The pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of this intervention, with the ultimate goal of optimizing FP utilization and improving decisional quality. The aim of this manuscript is to outline the study protocol for this pilot RCT.
Methods
Ethics
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at a large pediatric academic medical center in the Midwest approved the study (#STUDY00000849) on 6/22/20. All parents and AEAs at least 18 years of age will provide written informed consent. AEAs under the age of the 18 will provide written assent. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04268004). Relevant data will be made available at the conclusion of this study and results from this trial will be submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov.
In addition to the NCH IRB, safety oversight for the study will be under the direction of a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). The DSMB will consist of two faculty members from NCH, who both share extensive experience in research with pediatric populations, as well as clinical trials. The DSMB will be responsible for safeguarding the interests of trial participants, assessing the safety and efficacy of the intervention(s) during the trial, and for monitoring the overall conduct of the clinical trial.
Design
This is a single-site, randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to test a FP decision-making intervention for AEA males newly diagnosed with cancer and their families. This study will take place at a large pediatric academic medical center in the Midwest. At this center, a fertility consult is automatically placed for all individuals newly diagnosed with cancer [38]. During the consult, the fertility specialist (advanced practice nurse or oncologist) provides information on infertility risk and reviews available FP options. Families in this study will be randomized (1:1) to either receive: 1) a standard of care fertility consult prior to cancer treatment, or 2) standard of care fertility consult prior to cancer treatment and the intervention. Families in both groups will be approached 1-month and 1-year after the initial visit to complete follow-up assessments. The objective of this RCT is to examine the feasibility of the intervention and preliminary efficacy of the intervention on FP attempt rates. The secondary objective of this RCT is to use a mixed methods approach to examine the effects of the intervention on FP decision quality.
We have two main hypotheses, which are:
- Compared to the standard of care control group, male AEAs in the intervention group will have higher rates of FP utilization.
- Families in the intervention group will report better quality family communication and higher decision quality compared to the control group.
Sample size calculation
A sample size of n = 20 per group will provide 80% power to detect large effect sizes of w = .45 for the chi-square analysis and d = .91 for the independent samples t-test. Because this is a pilot study, the focus will be on generating preliminary effect size estimates for our primary outcome (FP utilization) comparing the intervention to the control group, rather than on statistical significance (e.g., using two-sided type I error rates of α < .05). The proposed sample size is sufficient for gleaning this information. The sample was determined based on the medium-large effects found in work by Klosky et al., which explored parent, provider, and AEA factors that influenced FP utilization [30].
Setting and participants
Participants will include 40 families of 12- to 25-year-old males newly diagnosed with cancer at a large pediatric academic medical center in the Midwest. Parents and AEAs will be identified by the principal investigator, who is notified when a new fertility consult request is placed, or by the oncologists collaborating on the RCT. Eligible participants must be: (a) scheduled to receive chemotherapy and/or gonadal radiation, (b) pubertal (i.e., at least Tanner stage 2–3), and (c) proficient in English. Parents of eligible participants can include up to two parents or other primary parents (e.g., step-parent, grandparents) to be inclusive of different family structures and situations. If the AEA is less than 18 years of age, at least one parent or legal guardian must be present to provide consent for the AEA to participate.
Recruitment and randomization
Following a fertility consult, research staff will recruit families in person (in either the inpatient or outpatient setting) or remotely (via phone). Research staff will explain the purpose of the study and ask the AEA and their parents (or other caregivers) if they are interested in participating. If they express interest, research staff will guide them through the informed consent process, provide them with a brief demographic survey, a follow-up form, and compensate each participating family member with a $5 meal card upon completion of measures. The research staff member will then exit the room, and the interventionist will enter to inform the family of their group assignment.
The interventionist will randomize each family through the data management software REDCap, which allows the randomization sequence generated by the statistician to be allocated via REDCap Randomization Module. In this module, the randomization sequence and group assignments are protected from the view of selected staff who use the REDCap program. Only the interventionist will have REDCap permissions to randomize and see the allocated group assignment when they log-on to REDCap. Study staff not involved in the intervention will be blinded to group assignment.
The REDCap program will have stratified randomization by age (<16 or ≥16) with blocks of 4 and 6 selected randomly (1:1) to either receive 1) standard of care fertility consult or 2) standard of care fertility consult and the intervention. The Center for Biobehavioral Health (CBH) Behavioral Trials Office (BTO) will maintain the randomization sequence. If the family is assigned to the control group, the first study visit is complete. If the family is assigned to the intervention group, they will complete the two-part intervention.
Intervention
The family-centered intervention is based on the Health Belief Model and Family Systems Theory [39]. The Health Belief Model proposes that certain beliefs: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, cues to action, and self-efficacy (Table 1) [40], play a key role in influencing health behavior change. The design of the FAST was informed by the Health Belief Model because the Health Belief Model has been shown to specifically predict FP [34,35]. This intervention expands on the FAST by incorporating guided conversation and parent perspectives, which can affect the FP decision-making process. Parent perspectives are especially important given that they play a key role in decision-making about FP [29–31,41,42]. The Family Systems Theory posits that individuals are connected to their family context, and each family member exerts an influence on each other’s behavior [43,44]. Thus, when AEAs make decisions about FP, the influence of the family must be considered in order to optimize decision-making [37,41,43,44]. The intervention addresses the importance of family-centered communication by prompting parents to reflect on their own FP knowledge and perspectives, as well as their son’s perspectives.
In the first part of the intervention, the AEA and their parents complete the FAST. This survey takes approximately 5–10 minutes to complete and will be given electronically via REDCap. The AEA version will gather a self-report of thoughts and opinions about FP and future parenthood goals. The parent version will gather a self-report, as well as proxy report (i.e., parents will report on their perception of the AEA’s thoughts and perspectives). After the completion of this survey, the interventionist will immediately generate a report using a program that compares responses in REDCap. This report will highlight any similarities and differences in responses across each family member.
The intervention incorporates techniques from motivational interviewing, which has shown to be a useful tool in healthcare decision-making [37,45,46]. These techniques include rapport-building with the AEA and their parents, actively listening to their perspectives about FP, and outlining perceived benefits of FP to families. The interventionist will review the similarities and differences in perspectives between the parent(s) and the AEA as reported on the FAST, as well as areas of uncertainty or knowledge gaps. See Table 2 for an overview on the content addressed throughout the guided discussion. Pro-banking responses will be highlighted due to the time-sensitivity of the decision-making process and the documented experiences of regret from AEAs who decide not to bank [8–10,12]. Fathers’ perspectives will be highlighted before mothers’ because father input has been shown to exert more influence in the decision to pursue FP [29]. Since FP use has shown to be correlated with higher family-level concordance [36], this intervention integrates theory-driven decision-making tools that assist families in reaching concordance regarding FP knowledge and parenthood goals, in the hopes of increasing FP attempts. Afterwards, families will receive an email summarizing the content discussed throughout the guided discussion, as well as a copy of their FAST report generated from REDCap. The interventionist will send this email immediately following the discussion. The purposed of this email is to encourage families to continue the conversation about FP after the intervention has concluded, and to serve as a reference for them.
Outcomes
To assess our variables of interest, we will collect data on demographic characteristics and outcome measures. Specifically, demographic characteristics will include age, race, ethnicity, religion, educational attainment, who they live with, relationship status, and income. Outcome measures include FP utilization and decision quality. Quantitative measures will be collected via paper or online REDCap surveys. Interviews will occur separately to allow each participant to speak freely. Interviews will be audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded for thematic content by trained research staff.
After the first visit, families will be contacted either in person, by phone, or by email in one month and at one year for a follow-up assessment. In visit 2, families in the intervention group will complete the FP Decision Survey, the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (PACS), the Brief Subjective Decision Quality Measure (BSDQ), the Parenthood Goals Survey, the Feasibility and Acceptability Survey, and a brief interview. Families in the control group will complete only the FP Decision Survey, the PACS, the BSDQ, the Parenthood Goals Survey, and the brief interview. In visit 3, families in both the intervention and control group will complete the BSDQ, the Parenthood Goals Survey, and another brief interview. See Fig 1 for a timeline of the study. See Fig 1 for the study timeline. Measures are described in Table 3.
Interventionist training and fidelity
The interventionist will have an advanced degree in a health-related field such as psychology, nursing, or public health. They will be trained in ENRICH/ECHO, which is an oncofertility communication training program [36] that consists of seven modules on the communication of reproductive health topics. The objective of the program is to help oncology health professionals effectively communicate key information regarding reproductive health to AEAs and their parents. The interventionist will also be trained on how to administer the FAST, create the REDCap report, and facilitate conversations between parents and AEAs. This training will involve a review of strategies for how to prioritize responses and how to engage in active listening.
Every intervention session will be audio-recorded. Two principal investigators will independently complete a fidelity checklist (Fig 2) for each session to monitor consistency of intervention delivery and to ensure key points have been covered in the discussion.
Statistical analyses
Quantitative
Chi-square analyses and t-tests will be used to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes. A chi-square analysis will be used to examine the primary outcome of FP utilization (Y/N) as a function of being in the control or intervention group. An independent samples t-test will be used to examine whether the secondary outcomes of decision quality (numerical score on the Brief Subjective Decision Quality measure) are different between the groups at the 1-month and 1-year follow-ups.
The two groups (intervention and control) will be examined in an exploratory manner to assess potential differences in factors known to affect FP decisions. These factors include demographic characteristics (e.g., age), perceived time constraints, knowledge of FP, provider and parent recommendations, as well as novel factors, such as quality of parent-child communication. We will also examine these baseline factors for potential inclusion in an analysis of covariance to see if they might have a substantial impact on effect size estimates for the larger RCT.
Qualitative
Recordings from the interview will be transcribed and imported into NVivo [47] (version 12) for analysis. Transcripts will be reviewed by a team of study staff. Thematic analysis will be used to identify common themes across interviews and to develop a category list. The technique employed will be the constant comparative analysis, in which interview content is compared across transcripts to reveal the most endorsed topics [48]. Multiple coders will be utilized to eliminate bias. The coding team will review transcripts in batches of 5–10 first for AEAs, until no new themes emerge. Once the coding team determines that no new themes are appearing, saturation will be reached. The coding team will repeat for interviews from mothers, and conclude with interviews from fathers. At this point, the coding team will review their tentative category lists and develop a finalized codebook, with definitions included. Next, study staff will use NVivo to code transcripts with the finalized themes and will identify frequency counts for each theme by participant. Kappa coefficients will be calculated using SPSS (version 26) to determine reliability amongst coders.
Discussion
Previous research suggests that the implementation of a dedicated fertility program can improve FP utilization [49,50], yet families still face challenges in communicating and making decisions about FP. As a result, parents often rely on providers or external support to bridge these conversations and express communication barriers around FP [38]. AEAs with cancer face additional barriers regarding FP decision-making, including emotional exhaustion [51], feeling sick and disengaged in conversation, or feeling a sense of embarrassment around the topic of infertility [52]. Our previous research shows many families are open to communicating about FP decisions, but require guidance in facilitating these conversations [37]. Additionally, higher levels of family concordance on fertility perspectives is associated with increased FP utilization and improved decisional quality [36–38]. These findings and theoretical models, such as the Health Belief Model and Family Systems theory, have been instrumental in informing novel interventions to facilitate FP decision-making in pediatric oncology.
In this manuscript, we describe an RCT which will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of an intervention designed for male AEAs newly diagnosed with cancer, with the goal of optimizing FP utilization and decision quality. By using known factors in healthcare decision-making, in addition to newly identified factors of concordance and family communication, it is anticipated that this intervention will aid families in their decision-making process. At the completion of this study, we will be able to determine if the implementation of this intervention has an impact on FP utilization and decisional quality. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective, longitudinal study that tests the efficacy of an intervention guided by both the Health Belief Model and family systems theory on FP utilization. This body of work will address critical gaps in knowledge about how to optimize the FP decision-making process to help more adolescents and young adults successfully achieve their future parenthood goals.
References
- 1. Ries L. AG Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER cancer statistics review. 1975;2005.
- 2.
Axtell L, Asire A, Myers M. Cancer patient survival report No. 5. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health. 1976.
- 3. Hudson MM, Mertens AC, Yasui Y, Hobbie W, Chen H, Gurney JG, et al. Health status of adult long-term survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Jama. 2003;290(12):1583–92. pmid:14506117
- 4. Green DM, Liu W, Kutteh WH, Ke RW, Shelton KC, Sklar CA, et al. Cumulative alkylating agent exposure and semen parameters in adult survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the St Jude Lifetime Cohort Study. The Lancet Oncology. 2014;15(11):1215–23. pmid:25239573
- 5. Brignardello E, Felicetti F, Castiglione A, Chiabotto P, Corrias A, Fagioli F, et al. Endocrine health conditions in adult survivors of childhood cancer: the need for specialized adult-focused follow-up clinics. European journal of endocrinology/European Federation of Endocrine Societies. 2013;168(3):465–72. pmid:23258270
- 6. Kenney LB, Laufer MR, Grant FD, Grier H, Diller L. High risk of infertility and long term gonadal damage in males treated with high dose cyclophosphamide for sarcoma during childhood. Cancer. 2001;91(3):613–21. pmid:11169946
- 7. Kenney LB, Duffey-Lind E, Ebb D, Sklar CA, Grier H, Diller L. Impaired testicular function after an ifosfamide-containing regimen for pediatric osteosarcoma: a case series and review of the literature. Journal of pediatric hematology/oncology. 2014;36(3):237–40. pmid:24667129
- 8. Stein DM, Victorson DE, Choy JT, Waimey KE, Pearman TP, Smith K, et al. Fertility Preservation Preferences and Perspectives Among Adult Male Survivors of Pediatric Cancer and Their Parents. Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology. 2014;3(2):75–82. pmid:24940531
- 9. Nilsson J, Jervaeus A, Lampic C, Eriksson LE, Widmark C, Armuand GM, et al. ’Will I be able to have a baby?’ Results from online focus group discussions with childhood cancer survivors in Sweden. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(12):2704–11. pmid:25344069
- 10. Ellis SJ, Wakefield CE, McLoone JK, Robertson EG, Cohn RJ. Fertility concerns among child and adolescent cancer survivors and their parents: A qualitative analysis. Journal of psychosocial oncology. 2016;34(5):347–62. pmid:27269305
- 11. Benedict C, Shuk E, Ford JS. Fertility Issues in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors. Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology. 2016;5(1):48–57. pmid:26812452
- 12. Armuand GM, Wettergren L, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Lampic C. Desire for children, difficulties achieving a pregnancy, and infertility distress 3 to 7 years after cancer diagnosis. Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2014;22(10):2805–12.
- 13. Lehmann V, Keim MC, Nahata L, Shultz EL, Klosky JL, Tuinman MA, et al. Fertility-related knowledge and reproductive goals in childhood cancer survivors: short communication. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(11):2250–3. pmid:29040512
- 14. Klosky JL, Simmons JL, Russell KM, Foster RH, Sabbatini GM, Canavera KE, et al. Fertility as a priority among at-risk adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer and their parents. Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2015;23(2):333–41. pmid:25082365
- 15. Nahata L, Caltabellotta NM, Yeager ND, Lehmann V, Whiteside SL, O’Brien SH, et al. Fertility perspectives and priorities among male adolescents and young adults in cancer survivorship. Pediatric blood & cancer. 2018;65(7):e27019. pmid:29537134
- 16. Chong AL, Gupta A, Punnett A, Nathan PC. A cross Canada survey of sperm banking practices in pediatric oncology centers. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010;55(7):1356–61. pmid:20730881
- 17. Schover LR, Brey K, Lichtin A, Lipshultz LI, Jeha S. Knowledge and experience regarding cancer, infertility, and sperm banking in younger male survivors. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2002;20(7):1880–9.
- 18. Bann CM, Treiman K, Squiers L, Tzeng J, Nutt S, Arvey S, et al. Cancer Survivors’ Use of Fertility Preservation. Journal of women’s health. 2015;24(12):1030–7. pmid:26375046
- 19. Grover NS, Deal AM, Wood WA, Mersereau JE. Young Men With Cancer Experience Low Referral Rates for Fertility Counseling and Sperm Banking. Journal of oncology practice. 2016;12(5):465–71. pmid:27118159
- 20. Nahata L, Cohen LE, Yu RN. Barriers to fertility preservation in male adolescents with cancer: it’s time for a multidisciplinary approach that includes urologists. Urology. 2012;79(6):1206–9. pmid:22542423
- 21. Flink DM, Sheeder J, Kondapalli LA. A Review of the Oncology Patient’s Challenges for Utilizing Fertility Preservation Services. Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology. 2016. pmid:27529573
- 22. Panagiotopoulou N, van Delft FW, Hale JP, Stewart JA. Fertility Preservation Care for Children and Adolescents with Cancer: An Inquiry to Quantify Professionals’ Barriers. Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology. 2017;6(3):422–8. pmid:28186840
- 23. Campbell JE, Assanasen C, Robinson RD, Knudtson JF. Fertility Preservation Counseling for Pediatric and Adolescent Cancer Patients. Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology. 2016;5(1):58–63. pmid:26812454
- 24. Galvin KM, Clayman ML. Whose future is it? Ethical family decision making about daughters’ treatment in the oncofertility context. Oncofertility. 2010:429–45. pmid:20811853
- 25. Ellis SJ, Wakefield CE, McLoone JK, Robertson EG, Cohn RJ. Fertility concerns among child and adolescent cancer survivors and their parents: a qualitative analysis. Journal of psychosocial oncology. 2016;34(5):347–62. pmid:27269305
- 26. Nahata L, Gerhardt CA, Quinn GP. Fertility Preservation Discussions With Male Adolescents With Cancer and Their Parents:“Ultimately, It’s His Decision”. JAMA pediatrics. 2018;172(9):799–800. pmid:30014147
- 27. Nurmi J-E, Poole ME, Kalakoski V. Age differences in adolescent future-oriented goals, concerns, and related temporal extension in different sociocultural contexts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1994;23(4):471–87.
- 28. Flynn JS, Russell KM, Lehmann V, Schenck LAM, Klosky JL. Parent recommendation to bank sperm among at‐risk adolescent and young adult males with cancer. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2020;67(10):e28217. pmid:32453503
- 29. Klosky JL, Flynn JS, Lehmann V, Russell KM, Wang F, Hardin RN, et al. Parental influences on sperm banking attempts among adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer. Fertility and sterility. 2017;108(6):1043–9. pmid:29202957
- 30. Klosky JL, Wang F, Russell KM, Zhang H, Flynn JS, Huang L, et al. Prevalence and predictors of sperm banking in adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer: examination of adolescent, parent, and provider factors influencing fertility preservation outcomes. Journal of clinical oncology. 2017;35(34):3830. pmid:28976795
- 31. Klosky JL, Lehmann V, Flynn JS, Su Y, Zhang H, Russell KM, et al. Patient factors associated with sperm cryopreservation among at‐risk adolescents newly diagnosed with cancer. Cancer. 2018;124(17):3567–75. pmid:29975417
- 32. Nahata L, Dattilo TM, Olsavsky AL, Lipak KG, Whiteside S, Yeager ND, et al. Impact of a novel family-centered values clarification tool on adolescent sperm banking attempts at the time of a new cancer diagnosis. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2021:1–9. pmid:33420649
- 33. Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health education quarterly. 1984;11(1):1–47. pmid:6392204
- 34. Ter Keurst A, Boivin J, Gameiro S. Women’s intentions to use fertility preservation to prevent age-related fertility decline. Reproductive biomedicine online. 2016;32(1):121–31. pmid:26611498
- 35. Fulford B, Bunting L, Tsibulsky I, Boivin J. The role of knowledge and perceived susceptibility in intentions to optimize fertility: findings from the International Fertility Decision-Making Study (IFDMS). Human Reproduction. 2013;28(12):3253–62. pmid:24105825
- 36. Nahata L, Olsavsky A, Dattilo TM, Lipak KG, Whiteside S, Yeager ND, et al. Parent–Adolescent Concordance Regarding Fertility Perspectives and Sperm Banking Attempts in Adolescent Males With Cancer. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2021;46(10):1149–58. pmid:34333651
- 37. Theroux CI, Hill KN, Olsavsky AL, Klosky JL, Yeager ND, Audino A, et al. Satisfaction with Fertility Preservation Decisions among Adolescent Males with Cancer: A Mixed Methods Study. Cancers. 2021;13(14):3559. pmid:34298773
- 38. Olsavsky AL, Theroux CI, Dattilo TM, Klosky JL, O’Brien SH, Quinn GP, et al. Family communication about fertility preservation in adolescent males newly diagnosed with cancer. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2021;68(7):e28978.
- 39. Bavelas JB, Segal L. Family systems theory: Background and implications. Journal of communication. 1982;32(3):99–107.
- 40. Champion VL, Skinner CS. The health belief model. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. 2008;4:45–65.
- 41. Achille MA, Rosberger Z, Robitaille R, Lebel S, Gouin J-P, Bultz BD, et al. Facilitators and obstacles to sperm banking in young men receiving gonadotoxic chemotherapy for cancer: the perspective of survivors and health care professionals. Human reproduction. 2006;21(12):3206–16. pmid:16887922
- 42. Ginsberg JP, Ogle SK, Tuchman LK, Carlson CA, Reilly MM, Hobbie WL, et al. Sperm banking for adolescent and young adult cancer patients: sperm quality, patient, and parent perspectives. Pediatric blood & cancer. 2008;50(3):594–8.
- 43. Von Bertalanffy L, Sutherland JW. General systems theory: Foundations, developments, applications. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1974(6):592–.
- 44. Cox MJ, Paley B. Understanding families as systems. Current directions in psychological science. 2003;12(5):193–6.
- 45. Elwyn G, Dehlendorf C, Epstein RM, Marrin K, White J, Frosch DL. Shared decision making and motivational interviewing: achieving patient-centered care across the spectrum of health care problems. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2014;12(3):270–5. pmid:24821899
- 46. Emmons KM, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing in health care settings: opportunities and limitations. American journal of preventive medicine. 2001;20(1):68–74. pmid:11137778
- 47.
International Q. 2021.
- 48. Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social problems. 1965;12(4):436–45.
- 49. Sheth KR, Sharma V, Helfand BT, Cashy J, Smith K, Hedges JC, et al. Improved fertility preservation care for male patients with cancer after establishment of formalized oncofertility program. The Journal of urology. 2012;187(3):979–86. pmid:22264454
- 50. Kelvin JF, Thom B, Benedict C, Carter J, Corcoran S, Dickler MN, et al. Cancer and fertility program improves patient satisfaction with information received. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016;34(15):1780. pmid:27044937
- 51. Morgan TL, Clark OE, Whiteside S, Audino A, Yeager ND, Klosky JL, et al. Recruiting families and children newly diagnosed with cancer for behavioral research: Important considerations and successful strategies. Psycho-oncology. 2019;28:928–30. pmid:30702782
- 52. Quinn GP, Murphy D, Knapp C, Stearsman DK, Bradley-Klug KL, Sawczyn K, et al. Who decides? Decision making and fertility preservation in teens with cancer: a review of the literature. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2011;49(4):337–46. pmid:21939862