International Journal of
Reproductive Biomedicine
Sun, Dec 22, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 20, Issue 2 (February 2022)
IJRM 2022, 20(2): 145-150 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kemal Harzif A, Surya R, Muharam Natadisastra R, Pratama G, Putri Meutia A. Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of practitioners supporting cancer patients in fertility preservation in DKI Jakarta: A cross-sectional study. IJRM 2022; 20 (2) :145-150
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-2033-en.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-2033-en.html
Achmad Kemal Harzif1 
, Raymond Surya * 2, Raden Muharam Natadisastra1 , Gita Pratama1 , Alfa Putri Meutia3
, Raymond Surya * 2, Raden Muharam Natadisastra1 , Gita Pratama1 , Alfa Putri Meutia3
1- Division of Immuno-Endocrinology and Fertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, DKI Jakarta Province, Indonesia.
2- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, DKI Jakarta Province, Indonesia. ,raymond_s130291@yahoo.co.id
3- Division of Reconstruction Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, DKI Jakarta Province, Indonesia.
2- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, DKI Jakarta Province, Indonesia. ,
3- Division of Reconstruction Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, DKI Jakarta Province, Indonesia.
Full-Text [PDF 257 kb]
(812 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (1390 Views)
1. Introduction
In Indonesia, based on Riset Kesehatan Dasar 2013, the prevalence of cervical and breast cancer were 0.08% (98,692 people) and 0.05% (61,682 people) in 2012, respectively. There are more than 135,000 people below 45 yr old who are diagnosed with cancer every year in Indonesia (1). The advancement of technology to screen and treat cancer has increased the survival rate of cancer patients. Unfortunately, long-term cancer therapy, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, can have negative psychological, economic, social, sexual, and biological effects (2). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network in 2014 stated that one of the most important concerns among young cancer patients was an option for fertility preservation (3, 4). One study found that few patients in the study were counselled about fertility preservation. This was due to a lack of knowledge on the optimal time and methods to preserve fertility (5).
The profile of knowledge, attitudes, and practices among specialists treating cancer patients is still varied. Several studies such as those conducted by Adams and colleagues (6) in the UK and Overbeek et al. (7) in the Netherlands have shown that oncologists recognize that fertility preservation is an important issue. However, less than 50% of oncologists in these studies discussed the choices of patients due to lack of time, lack of knowledge, bad patient prognosis, and fertility treatment variable success rate and unaffordable cost. Lack of health providers’ knowledge will influence their attitudes and practices.
No studies have been carried out about health care providers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding fertility preservation in cancer patients; therefore, this study aimed to determine the profile of these, focusing on Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
This descriptive study with a cross-sectional design was conducted in all type D government hospitals with general practitioners and specialists in Jakarta, and in Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital in Jakarta with subspecialists, from January 2018 to August 2019. The participants consisted of general practitioners, pediatricians, subspecialists in hematology-oncology, interns, intern subspecialists in hematology-oncology, general surgeons, oncology surgeons, and radiotherapy specialists.
2.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was adapted from a questionnaire by the British Journal of Cancer from 2013 with the title fertility preservation in cancer survivors: A national survey of oncologists’ current knowledge, practice, and attitudes. The results of its translation and validation in the Indonesian language have been published by Harzif et al. (8).
2.3. Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia (Code: 926/UN2.F1/ETIK/2017). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
2.4. Statistical analysis
The data gathered from the completed questionnaires were described by frequency and percentage. The analysis used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 23.0.
3. Results
Within the 18 type D government hospitals in Jakarta, 133 of the 215 general practitioners (61.9%) fully completed the questionnaire, as did 21 of 40 (52.5%) internists, 18 of 41 (43.9%) pediatricians, 12 of 25 (48.0%) general surgeons, and 20 of 39 (51.3%) obstetricians and gynecologists. In Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital in Jakarta, 2 of the 13 intern subspecialists in hematology-oncology (15%) fully completed the questionnaire, as well as 5 of 18 (63%) pediatrician subspecialists in hematology-oncology, 2 of 6 (33%) oncologist surgeons, and 6 of 10 (60%) radiotherapy specialists.
Around 65.4% of the general practitioners were 26-30 yr old and 46.6% graduated from Government University. 40.6% were members of Java tribes. Among the specialists, 70.4% were 31-35 yr old and 60.6% graduated from Universitas Indonesia. Meanwhile, all of the subspecialists graduated from Universitas Indonesia with an average age of 31-40 yr (53%).
The general practitioners, specialists, and subspecialists most knew about in vitro fertilization (IVF) with embryo cryopreservation (12.1%), sperm cryopreservation (25.4%), and IVF with embryo preservation and sperm cryopreservation using a GnRH agonist pre-cancer treatment (13%), respectively. A positive attitude about fertility preservation as an important priority for cancer patients was shown among 72.0% of general practitioners, 73.3% of specialists, and 100% of subspecialists. The general practitioners often referred patients who had questions about fertility to a fertility specialist (44.4%). The specialists and subspecialists mostly discussed the impact that a patient’s condition and/or treatment might have on their future fertility (54.9% and 67%). Table I describes the factors influencing health care providers when initiating a discussion about fertility preservation. Table II depicts comments from health care providers about fertility preservation.
4. Discussion
Most of the general practitioners had never had patients that were using fertility preservation methods and only a few knew about the choices concerning them. A study conducted in Indonesia by Harzif et al. (9) stated that this is common due to a lack of specialized organizations or local guidance concerning fertility preservation. This lack of general practitioners’ knowledge in Indonesia is also seen in the United States where less than 25% of general practitioners participating in one study could present educational material about fertility preservation (10). Around 91% of them needed further information about fertility preservation; only a few had discussed this topic with fertility specialists, given written information about fertility preservation, or considered patients’ hopes about their future fertility. This may be because of a lack of knowledge in fertility preservation, newly started fertility preservation facilities in Indonesia, unclear referral schematics, and unaffordable costs which have not been supported by universal health coverage.
Among specialists, the response rate was from 43.9% to 52.5%. This response rate was better compared with a study in Hong Kong which had a response rate of 36.5% (11). The three most known methods in our study’s specialists were IVF with embryo cryopreservation, sperm cryopreservation, and methods carried out pre-cancer treatment using a GnRH agonist. In the Hong Kong study, the three most familiar fertility preservations were similar: sperm cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation, and IVF with embryo cryopreservation (11).
Around 74.6% of specialists and 93.0% of subspecialists still needed further information about fertility preservation. In a study conducted in Lebanon, 89% of oncologists agreed that cancer treatment can threaten fertility and 94.4% agreed to discuss fertility issues with patients. Specialists and subspecialists often discussed the impact of a patient’s condition on fertility in the future (12). Quinn and colleagues showed that oncologists in their study were 4.9 times more likely to discuss about the influence of cancer treatment on fertility. Meanwhile, oncologist gynecologists or oncologist hematologists were 2.1 times more comfortable in discussing the option of fertility preservation with patients. However, less than 25% referred patients to fertility specialists. This was because fertility preservation services were only newly developed and there was a lack of informational media about these services (10). Other studies have shown that only 47% of oncologists in the United States and less than 20% in Saudi Arabia referred cancer patients to fertility centers (13, 14).
Factors influencing the discussion about fertility preservation included a bad prognosis, a patient being too ill to delay treatment, and being unable to afford to pay for the service. These factors were in accordance with another study which found that challenges in referring to fertility specialists included a high rate of recurrence and a bad prognosis (15-17). Oncologists also said that there was not enough time to perform fertility preservation activities before cancer treatment. Sperm preservation has a higher success rate than ovary preservation (18); therefore, this information should be used in counseling patients. Oncologists believed that the desire to refer depended on the attitudes about fertility preservation. In the Lebanese study, 90% of the oncologists had more than six yr experience; however, the knowledge of choices, success rates, and costs of fertility preservation methods was still limited. Therefore, this issue should be included in the curriculum of oncology training (12).
4.1. Limitations
This study had the limitation of non-response bias due to potential differences in those who did not return a complete questionnaire. Apart from that, the data were based on questionnaire choices, so it was impossible for in-depth data to be collected and there was a risk for respondents misunderstanding the instructions.
5. Conclusion
The knowledge of and practices regarding fertility preservation were different among general practitioners, specialists, and subspecialists. Positive attitudes among them were similar.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank everyone who supported this study and also to DRPM Universitas Indonesia by Hibah Pitta 2018. This work was supported by Hibah PITTA 2018, funded by DRPM Universitas Indonesia (Grant No. 5000/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Full-Text: (315 Views)
1. Introduction
In Indonesia, based on Riset Kesehatan Dasar 2013, the prevalence of cervical and breast cancer were 0.08% (98,692 people) and 0.05% (61,682 people) in 2012, respectively. There are more than 135,000 people below 45 yr old who are diagnosed with cancer every year in Indonesia (1). The advancement of technology to screen and treat cancer has increased the survival rate of cancer patients. Unfortunately, long-term cancer therapy, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, can have negative psychological, economic, social, sexual, and biological effects (2). The National Comprehensive Cancer Network in 2014 stated that one of the most important concerns among young cancer patients was an option for fertility preservation (3, 4). One study found that few patients in the study were counselled about fertility preservation. This was due to a lack of knowledge on the optimal time and methods to preserve fertility (5).
The profile of knowledge, attitudes, and practices among specialists treating cancer patients is still varied. Several studies such as those conducted by Adams and colleagues (6) in the UK and Overbeek et al. (7) in the Netherlands have shown that oncologists recognize that fertility preservation is an important issue. However, less than 50% of oncologists in these studies discussed the choices of patients due to lack of time, lack of knowledge, bad patient prognosis, and fertility treatment variable success rate and unaffordable cost. Lack of health providers’ knowledge will influence their attitudes and practices.
No studies have been carried out about health care providers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding fertility preservation in cancer patients; therefore, this study aimed to determine the profile of these, focusing on Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
This descriptive study with a cross-sectional design was conducted in all type D government hospitals with general practitioners and specialists in Jakarta, and in Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital in Jakarta with subspecialists, from January 2018 to August 2019. The participants consisted of general practitioners, pediatricians, subspecialists in hematology-oncology, interns, intern subspecialists in hematology-oncology, general surgeons, oncology surgeons, and radiotherapy specialists.
2.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was adapted from a questionnaire by the British Journal of Cancer from 2013 with the title fertility preservation in cancer survivors: A national survey of oncologists’ current knowledge, practice, and attitudes. The results of its translation and validation in the Indonesian language have been published by Harzif et al. (8).
2.3. Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia (Code: 926/UN2.F1/ETIK/2017). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
2.4. Statistical analysis
The data gathered from the completed questionnaires were described by frequency and percentage. The analysis used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 23.0.
3. Results
Within the 18 type D government hospitals in Jakarta, 133 of the 215 general practitioners (61.9%) fully completed the questionnaire, as did 21 of 40 (52.5%) internists, 18 of 41 (43.9%) pediatricians, 12 of 25 (48.0%) general surgeons, and 20 of 39 (51.3%) obstetricians and gynecologists. In Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital in Jakarta, 2 of the 13 intern subspecialists in hematology-oncology (15%) fully completed the questionnaire, as well as 5 of 18 (63%) pediatrician subspecialists in hematology-oncology, 2 of 6 (33%) oncologist surgeons, and 6 of 10 (60%) radiotherapy specialists.
Around 65.4% of the general practitioners were 26-30 yr old and 46.6% graduated from Government University. 40.6% were members of Java tribes. Among the specialists, 70.4% were 31-35 yr old and 60.6% graduated from Universitas Indonesia. Meanwhile, all of the subspecialists graduated from Universitas Indonesia with an average age of 31-40 yr (53%).
The general practitioners, specialists, and subspecialists most knew about in vitro fertilization (IVF) with embryo cryopreservation (12.1%), sperm cryopreservation (25.4%), and IVF with embryo preservation and sperm cryopreservation using a GnRH agonist pre-cancer treatment (13%), respectively. A positive attitude about fertility preservation as an important priority for cancer patients was shown among 72.0% of general practitioners, 73.3% of specialists, and 100% of subspecialists. The general practitioners often referred patients who had questions about fertility to a fertility specialist (44.4%). The specialists and subspecialists mostly discussed the impact that a patient’s condition and/or treatment might have on their future fertility (54.9% and 67%). Table I describes the factors influencing health care providers when initiating a discussion about fertility preservation. Table II depicts comments from health care providers about fertility preservation.
4. Discussion
Most of the general practitioners had never had patients that were using fertility preservation methods and only a few knew about the choices concerning them. A study conducted in Indonesia by Harzif et al. (9) stated that this is common due to a lack of specialized organizations or local guidance concerning fertility preservation. This lack of general practitioners’ knowledge in Indonesia is also seen in the United States where less than 25% of general practitioners participating in one study could present educational material about fertility preservation (10). Around 91% of them needed further information about fertility preservation; only a few had discussed this topic with fertility specialists, given written information about fertility preservation, or considered patients’ hopes about their future fertility. This may be because of a lack of knowledge in fertility preservation, newly started fertility preservation facilities in Indonesia, unclear referral schematics, and unaffordable costs which have not been supported by universal health coverage.
Among specialists, the response rate was from 43.9% to 52.5%. This response rate was better compared with a study in Hong Kong which had a response rate of 36.5% (11). The three most known methods in our study’s specialists were IVF with embryo cryopreservation, sperm cryopreservation, and methods carried out pre-cancer treatment using a GnRH agonist. In the Hong Kong study, the three most familiar fertility preservations were similar: sperm cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation, and IVF with embryo cryopreservation (11).
Around 74.6% of specialists and 93.0% of subspecialists still needed further information about fertility preservation. In a study conducted in Lebanon, 89% of oncologists agreed that cancer treatment can threaten fertility and 94.4% agreed to discuss fertility issues with patients. Specialists and subspecialists often discussed the impact of a patient’s condition on fertility in the future (12). Quinn and colleagues showed that oncologists in their study were 4.9 times more likely to discuss about the influence of cancer treatment on fertility. Meanwhile, oncologist gynecologists or oncologist hematologists were 2.1 times more comfortable in discussing the option of fertility preservation with patients. However, less than 25% referred patients to fertility specialists. This was because fertility preservation services were only newly developed and there was a lack of informational media about these services (10). Other studies have shown that only 47% of oncologists in the United States and less than 20% in Saudi Arabia referred cancer patients to fertility centers (13, 14).
Factors influencing the discussion about fertility preservation included a bad prognosis, a patient being too ill to delay treatment, and being unable to afford to pay for the service. These factors were in accordance with another study which found that challenges in referring to fertility specialists included a high rate of recurrence and a bad prognosis (15-17). Oncologists also said that there was not enough time to perform fertility preservation activities before cancer treatment. Sperm preservation has a higher success rate than ovary preservation (18); therefore, this information should be used in counseling patients. Oncologists believed that the desire to refer depended on the attitudes about fertility preservation. In the Lebanese study, 90% of the oncologists had more than six yr experience; however, the knowledge of choices, success rates, and costs of fertility preservation methods was still limited. Therefore, this issue should be included in the curriculum of oncology training (12).
4.1. Limitations
This study had the limitation of non-response bias due to potential differences in those who did not return a complete questionnaire. Apart from that, the data were based on questionnaire choices, so it was impossible for in-depth data to be collected and there was a risk for respondents misunderstanding the instructions.
5. Conclusion
The knowledge of and practices regarding fertility preservation were different among general practitioners, specialists, and subspecialists. Positive attitudes among them were similar.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank everyone who supported this study and also to DRPM Universitas Indonesia by Hibah Pitta 2018. This work was supported by Hibah PITTA 2018, funded by DRPM Universitas Indonesia (Grant No. 5000/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Type of Study: Short Research Reports |
Subject:
Reproductive Epidemiology
References
1. Pusat Data dan Informasi - Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia [Internet]. [cited 2020 May 25]. Available at: https://pusdatin.kemkes.go.id/article/view/15090700004/situasi-penyakit-kanker.html. (in Indonesian)
2. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Thresholds for therapies: Highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1319-1329. [DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdp322] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Coccia PF, Pappo AS, Beaupin L, Borges VF, Borinstein SC, Chugh R, et al. Adolescent and young adult oncology, version 2.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2018; 16: 66-97. [DOI:10.6004/jnccn.2018.0001] [PMID]
4. Levine J, Canada A, Stern CJ. Fertility preservation in adolescents and young adults with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4831-4841. [DOI:10.1200/JCO.2009.22.8312] [PMID]
5. Taylor JF, Ott MA. Fertility preservation after a cancer diagnosis: A systematic review of adolescents', parents', and providers' perspectives, experiences, and preferences. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2016; 29: 585-598. [DOI:10.1016/j.jpag.2016.04.005] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Adams E, Hill E, Watson E. Fertility preservation in cancer survivors: A national survey of oncologists' current knowledge, practice and attitudes. Br J Cancer 2013; 108: 1602-1615. [DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.139] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Overbeek A, van den Berg M, Louwé L, Wendel E, Ter Kuile M, Kaspers G, et al. Practice, attitude and knowledge of Dutch paediatric oncologists regarding female fertility. Neth J Med 2014; 72: 264-270.
8. Harzif AK, Surya R, Maidarti M, Mariana A, Lovita BT, Wiweko B. Developing an Indonesian fertility preservation questionnaire for health care providers treating patients with cancer: A preliminary pilot study. F1000Res 2018; 7: 1890.
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15948.2 [DOI:10.12688/f1000research.15948.1] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Harzif AK, Santawi VPA, Maidarti M, Wiweko B. Investigation of each society for fertility preservation in Asia. Front Endocrinol 2019; 10: 151. [DOI:10.3389/fendo.2019.00151] [PMID] [PMCID]
10. Quinn G, Vadaparampil ST, Jacobsen P, Lee J, Lancaster J, Bepler G, et al. National survey of physicians practice patterns: Fertility preservation and cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27 (Suppl.): CRA9508. [DOI:10.1200/jco.2009.27.18_suppl.cra9508]
11. Chung JPW, Lao TTh, Li TC. Evaluation of the awareness of, attitude to, and knowledge about fertility preservation in cancer patients among clinical practitioners in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2017; 23: 556-561. [DOI:10.12809/hkmj176840] [PMID]
12. Ghazeeri G, Zebian D, Nassar AH, Harajly S, Abdallah A, Hakimian S, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and awareness regarding fertility preservation among oncologists and clinical practitioners in Lebanon. Hum Fertil 2016; 19: 127-133. [DOI:10.1080/14647273.2016.1193636] [PMID]
13. Rabah DM, Wahdan IH, Merdawy A, Abourafe B, Arafa MA. Oncologists' knowledge and practice towards sperm cryopreservation in Arabic communities. J Cancer Surviv 2010; 4: 279-283. [DOI:10.1007/s11764-010-0140-z] [PMID]
14. Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, Lee JH, Jacobsen PB, Bepler G, Lancaster J, et al. Physician referral for fertility preservation in oncology patients: A national study of practice behaviors. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 5952-5957.
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.27.18_suppl.cra9508
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23.0250 [DOI:10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.cra9508] [PMID]
15. Shimizu C, Bando H, Kato T, Mizota Y, Yamamoto S, Fujiwara Y. Physicians' knowledge, attitude, and behavior regarding fertility issues for young breast cancer patients: A national survey for breast care specialists. Breast Cancer 2013; 20: 230-240. [DOI:10.1007/s12282-011-0328-8] [PMID]
16. Arafa MA, Rabah DM. Attitudes and practices of oncologists toward fertility preservation. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2011; 33: 203-207. [DOI:10.1097/MPH.0b013e3182068047] [PMID]
17. Collins IM, Fay L, Kennedy MJ. Strategies for fertility preservation after chemotherapy: Awareness among Irish cancer specialists. Ir Med J 2011; 104: 6-9.
18. Chung JPW, Haines ChJ, Kong GWS. Sperm cryopreservation for Chinese male cancer patients: A 17-year retrospective analysis in an assisted reproductive unit in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2013; 19: 525-530. [DOI:10.12809/hkmj134055] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
