Dataset Information

Impact of legislation and public funding on oncofertility: a survey of Canadian, French and Moroccan pediatric hematologists/oncologists.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy treatments may cause premature ovarian failure and irreversible loss of fertility. In the context of childhood cancers, it is now acknowledged that possible negative effects of therapies on future reproductive autonomy are a major concern. While a few options are open to post-pubertal patients, the only immediate option currently open to pre-pubertal girls is cryopreservation of ovarian tissue and subsequent transplantation. The aim of the study was to address a current gap in knowledge regarding the offer of fertility preservation by Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation (OTC) for prepubescent girls with cancer, and to explore current practices and attitudes of Canadian, French and Moroccan pediatric heme oncologists. The comparative perspective is relevant since legal frameworks surrounding fertility preservation and funding offered by the healthcare system vary greatly.

Methods

An online survey was sent to the 45 pediatric oncology centers in Canada, France and Morocco.

Results

A total of 39 centers responded (86.6%). OTC is offered by almost all pediatric heme oncologists in France (98%), very few in Canada (5%), and none in Morocco (0%). For pediatric hematologists/oncologists who do not propose fertility preservation in Canada, the reasons are: the technique is still experimental (54%), it is not available locally (26%) and cost of the technique for the family (14%). 97% of Canadian and 100% of Moroccan pediatric hematologists/oncologists think OTC should be funded by the healthcare system as it is in France and in the province of Quebec in Canada.

Conclusions

The results of this study show tremendous diversity in the provision of OTC across countries, whereby its offer is correlated with legislation and funding. We argue that the current reality, in which this technology is often not offered to families, raises ethical issues related to justice and equity of access, as well as informed consent and future reproductive autonomy.

SUBMITTER: Affdal AO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7118810 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: As cancer has become a major public health issue in China, fertility preservation remains limited despite the wide application of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) throughout the country. Objective: This study aimed to identify gaps in knowledge and communication as well as referrals in the previous year regarding oncofertility among medical and surgical oncologists and breast cancer patients (BCPs) in Chinese academic settings to target areas of needed improvement. Materials and Methods: A WeChat online questionnaire was designed, distributed, and compared between medical and surgical oncology specialists and reproductive age BCPs in academic teaching settings in Shanghai. Results: Sixty-one medical and surgical oncologists and 125 BCPs responded to the survey. 63.3% of oncologists were familiar with the term "oncofertility" compared to 25.6% of BCPs (p < 0.001). Oncologists were more likely to correctly know the costs associated with treatment (59.0 vs. 32.0%, p < 0.001); patient did not have to be married to undergo oncofertility treatment (50.8 vs. 24.8%, p < 0.001). Both oncologists and BCPs were similarly unlikely to know when patients could utilize cryopreserved tissue in the future (37.7 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.056). While oncologists reported they discussed all oncofertility options (41.0%) and offered psychological counseling (98.4%), significantly fewer BCPs reported receiving information on all options and offered counseling (3.2%, p < 0.001 and 85.6%, p < 0.01). Knowledge of oncofertility was the most important predictor for providing and receiving counseling from oncologists [OR = 6.44 (95% CI = 1.59-26.1, p = 0.009] and BCPs (OR = 3.73 95% CI: = 1.36-10.2, p = 0.011). Overall, 57.4% of oncologists referred <10 patients and none referred more than 25 patients in the past year. Conclusion: Data suggests a significant knowledge gap and ineffective communication/comprehension exists between academic Chinese oncologists and BCPs. Continued education and raised awareness are needed to optimize utilization of oncofertility services in China.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest.ResultsOne way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources.ConclusionAggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.