Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Transgender individuals may experience impaired fertility due to gender-affirming hormonal interventions (e.g., pubertal suppression treatment and/or exogenous hormones). Clinical practice guidelines recommend providers discuss fertility implications and options for fertility preservation. The goal of this study was to examine fertility knowledge, practice behaviors, and perceived barriers to fertility care among multidisciplinary providers who care for transgender pediatric and/or adult patients. METHODS:A 46-item survey was distributed to relevant listservs and at conferences with a focus on transgender health. RESULTS:Two hundred two providers completed the survey: (1) physicians (n = 87), (2) psychologists (n = 51), (3) Master (MA)-level mental health providers (n = 39), and (4) nonphysician healthcare providers, comprising advanced practice nurses, registered nurses, and physician assistants (n = 25). Overall knowledge was high (M = 3.64, SD = 1.61). Significant differences were identified in knowledge by provider type (p <.001) but not patient age group (p = .693). Physicians had significantly greater knowledge than MA-level mental health providers (p = .005). Variables associated with fertility discussion included provider-related barriers [b = -.42, p < .001], and perceived patient-related barriers, including perceptions that patients are unwilling to delay treatment [b = .12, p = .011] or are unable to afford fertility preservation (FP) [b = .12, p = .029]. CONCLUSIONS:While overall fertility-related knowledge was high, there was variability in domains of knowledge, as well as provider practice behaviors related to fertility counseling and referral for FP. Findings related to perceived barriers to fertility counseling and fertility preservation warrant further investigation; qualitative studies may be particularly helpful in understanding how specific provider- and patient-related barriers impact counseling and referral for fertility-related care.

OBJECTIVE:Despite substantial LGBT cancer health disparities, there are no LGBT cultural competency trainings tailored for oncologists. Here we describe the systematic development of a web-based, oncology-focused LGBT cultural competency training. METHODS:A literature review regarding LGBT cancer outcomes and competency training was conducted to identify potential training content. An expert panel meeting, including LGBT cancer survivors, cultural competency experts, oncologists, a web designer, and an instructional designer, was held to solidify the training content focus. Following the panel, the training was developed in collaboration with an instructional designer, a web designer, and LGBT community members. RESULTS:The training modules include: 1) LGBT Basics; 2) Inclusive Environments; 3) Initiating Oncology Care with LGBT Patients; and 4) Issues in Cancer Survivorship among LGBT Patients. Module content is interactive, and models effective communication. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The process of collaboration with a diverse group of stakeholders and three cancer centers in Florida has resulted in a practical and efficient web-based resource for LGBT cultural competency training for oncologists. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Feedback from stakeholders indicates that training in this area is needed and will be well-received by oncologists. We are currently conducting an evaluation of this training among oncologists and LGBT community members.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To examine provider perceptions of practice behaviors and barriers related to fertility counseling, fertility preservation, and family building among transgender patients. METHODS:Participants were medical and mental health professionals who treat adult and youth transgender patients. Recruitment occurred online and in person, via professional listservs for transgender professionals, conferences, and gender clinics. From August-November 2017, 110 participants representing nine countries responded to four open-ended questions included on a survey related to provider practice behaviors and perceived barriers to fertility counseling, fertility preservation, and family building with transgender patients. Thematic coding analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS:Multiple themes were identified including the following: access and cost issues; urgency for gender-affirming treatment; patient maturity and inability to make future-oriented decisions; and provider-related challenges pertaining to knowledge, role, and general lack of information in the nascent field of transgender reproductive health. CONCLUSION(S)/CONCLUSIONS:This study yielded insights into practice behaviors, challenges, and perceived barriers to fertility counseling with transgender individuals and can serve as a basis for intervention development to optimize clinical practices with this population.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:As many as two-thirds of male childhood cancer survivors are at risk for fertility impairment as a consequence of treatment. Despite this, survivorship guidelines lack concrete recommendations as to when fertility status conversations should happen between patients and providers and what should be discussed. Thus, conversations may be inconsistent, or do not occur at all in survivorship. To inform recommendations for fertility-related conversations in survivorship, this pilot study aimed to better understand background (e.g., age, diagnosis and treatment intensity) and psychosocial factors (i.e., perceived barriers and perceived susceptibility) associated with survivor interest in learning about fertility status. METHODS:Male survivors (N = 45) 15-25 years of age were recruited within 1-8 years of completing treatment. Survivors completed questionnaires based on the Health Belief Model (HBM) to assess perception of infertility risk and attitudes toward testing. RESULTS:Most survivors (n = 31; 69%) reported they were informed of their risk for infertility by a healthcare provider before treatment, but only 31% (n = 14) of the sample banked sperm. Nearly two-thirds of survivors (n = 29; 64%) were interested in learning more about their fertility post-treatment. This interest was significantly correlated with greater perceived susceptibility to infertility by survivors, but it was not associated with other psychosocial or background factors. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Informing survivors of their personal infertility risk may increase interest in pursuing testing. Offering opportunities for fertility testing and family planning alternatives may mitigate potential psychological distress and unplanned pregnancy. While additional research is needed, future survivorship guidelines should encourage regular communication about fertility status and offer fertility testing for male survivors.

Transgender adolescents and young adults may wish to use cross-sex hormones as means to achieve identity goals. However, these hormones may impair future reproductive functioning. This case explores the complexities related to clinical decision-making concerning fertility and the use of cross-sex hormones in adolescent and young adult transgender populations.

In this article, we discuss a case in which a 16-year-old birth-assigned male came out to her parents as transgender. She is referred to the gender management program at a large pediatric academic center to discuss hormone therapy. She was initially evaluated by a psychiatrist, diagnosed with gender dysphoria and anxiety, and treated with medication and psychotherapy. When her anxiety was well controlled and she met eligibility and readiness criteria, she was referred to 1 of 2 pediatric endocrinologists in the gender management program to discuss hormone therapy. As part of the discussion about the risks/benefits of estrogen therapy, the pediatric endocrinologist discussed options for fertility preservation (FP) before potentially gonadotoxic therapy. The patient stated that she was not interested in FP. Her mother requested procedures to preserve the possibility that the daughter could have biological children someday. We asked experts in the care of transgender youth to discuss ways in which the doctor could respond to this disagreement between parents and a teenager about FP.

OBJECTIVES:To describe the current state of cancer screening and uptake for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons and to propose cancer screening considerations for LGBT persons. DATA SOURCES:Current and historic published literature on cancer screening and LGBT cancer screening; published national guidelines. CONCLUSION:Despite known cancer risks for members of the LGBT community, cancer screening rates are often low, and there are gaps in screening recommendations for LGBT persons. We propose evidence-based cancer screening considerations derived from the current literature and extant cancer screening recommendations. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE:The oncology nurse plays a key role in supporting patient preventive care and screening uptake through assessment, counseling, education, advocacy, and intervention. As oncology nurses become expert in the culturally competent care of LGBT persons, they can contribute to the improvement of quality of care and overall well-being of this health care disparity population.