Oncofertility Communication Tools for Professionals and the Public

  • Stefani Foster LaBrecque
  • Harlan Wallach
  • Kate E. Waimey


The interdisciplinary field of oncofertility raises unique challenges and presents new opportunities for communicating cutting-edge advances in research and clinical care to scientists, health care providers, and the patient community. Oncofertility professionals, including members of the Oncofertility Consortium, have developed a diverse set of tools, including Web sites, virtual meeting capabilities, and mobile tools, to educate research and medical professionals. Technologies such as social media can also help professionals as they disseminate information to the public about oncofertility issues and options. Effective communication about oncofertility requires recognition of the unique perspectives of patients, providers, researchers, and the public—in this chapter, we discuss these perspectives and describe the array of communication tools that are available to oncofertility professionals.


Fertility Preservation Virtual Meeting Fertility Preservation Option Young Cancer Patient Mobile Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by the Oncofertility Consortium NIH 5UL1DE019587.


  1. 1.
    Yarbro CH. International nursing and breast cancer. Breast. 2003;9 Suppl 2:S98–100.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenberg M. E-learning: strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill; 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bates T. Technology, e-learning and distance education. New York, NY: Routledge; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blakely JT, Sinkowitz-Cochran RL, Jarvis WR. Infectious diseases physicians’ preferences for continuing medical education on antimicrobial resistance and other general topics. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:873–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galvin JE, Meuser TM, Boise L, Connell CM. Internet-based dementia resources: physician attitudes and practices. J Appl Gerontol. 2011;30:513–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, Gwede CK, Miree C, King LM, Clayton HB, Wilson C, Munster P. Discussion of fertility preservation with newly diagnosed patients: oncologists’ views. J Cancer Surviv. 2007;1:146–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sinusas K. Internet point of care learning at a community hospital. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009;29:39–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuo GM, Ma JD, Lee KC, Halpert JR, Bourne PE, Ganiats TG, Taylor P. Institutional profile: University of California San Diego Pharmacogenomics Education Program (PharmGenEd): bridging the gap between science and practice. Pharmacogenomics. 2011;12:149–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:1181–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med. 2006;81:207–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2010;85:909–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prgomet M, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI. The impact of mobile handheld technology on hospital physicians’ work practices and patient care: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:792–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kho A, Henderson LE, Dressler DD, Kripalani S. Use of handheld computers in medical education. A systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:531–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shurtz S, von Isenburg M. Exploring e-readers to support clinical medical education: two case studies. J Med Libr Assoc. 2011;99:110–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clayman ML, Harper M, Quinn GP, Shah S, Reinecke J. The status of oncofertility resources at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29 Suppl 15:Abstract 9123.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, Malo T, Reinecke J, Bower B, Albrecht T, Clayman ML. Oncologists’ use of patient educational materials about cancer and fertility preservation. Psychooncology. 2011;21:1244–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schover LR, Brey K, Lichtin A, Lipshultz LI, Jeha S. Oncologists’ attitudes and practices regarding banking sperm before cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1890–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rudd RE, Moeykens BA, Colton TC. Health and literacy: a review of medical and public health literature. In: Comings J, Garners B, Smith C, editors. Health and literacy. New York, NY: Jossey‐Bass; 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jona K, Gerber A. MyOncofertility.org: a web-based patient education resource supporting decision making under severe emotional and cognitive overload. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:345–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loscalzo MJ, Clark KL. The psychosocial context of cancer-related infertility. Cancer Treat Res. 2007;138:180–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefani Foster LaBrecque
    • 1
  • Harlan Wallach
    • 2
  • Kate E. Waimey
    • 3
  1. 1.Northwestern University Advanced Media Production StudioEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.NUIT—Northwestern University Information TechnologiesChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations