title: Using decision trees to enhance interdisciplinary team work: the case of oncofertility.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Oncofertility, an emerging discipline at the intersection of cancer and fertility, strives to give cancer patients options when they are confronting potential infertility as a consequence of cancer treatment. Fertility preservation decisions must be made before treatment begins, adding stress to the decision-making process.
  
  
  METHODS
  Healthcare providers need to be aware of the intricacies involved in oncofertility decision making, and the often tight time line that patients face when making these decisions. Cancer patient's perspectives may also change, as the dual burden of a cancer diagnosis and potential infertility can cause great flux in emotions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A provider-facing decision tree was created to enhance patient decision-making capacities and outline the multiple potential intervention points.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Decision trees, which highlight the important decision points during which providers can approach patients, can be a useful tool to help providers in counseling patients on fertility preservation.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Suite 10-121, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
authors.forename: Shauna L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Gardino
authors.forename: Jacqueline S
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Jeruss
authors.forename: Teresa K
authors.initials: TK
authors.lastname: Woodruff
mesh_terms: D003657:Decision Making; D003663:Decision Trees; D005260:Female; D005298:Fertility / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D007246:Infertility / Q000517:prevention & control*; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000150:complications* / Q000628:therapy; D010348:Patient Care Team
references.citation: Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:111-34
references.pmid: 20811829
references.citation: J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010 Mar-Apr;55(2):175-80
references.pmid: 20189137
references.citation: Am J Bioeth. 2008 Jun;8(6):21-9
references.pmid: 18726776
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2008 Feb;23(2):251-8
references.pmid: 18083744
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):267-77
references.pmid: 11475383
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2006 Dec;21(12):3199-205
references.pmid: 16931803
references.citation: Patient Prefer Adherence. 2009 Nov 03;3:21-4
references.pmid: 19936141
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2009 Jun;91(6):2391-8
references.pmid: 18579139
references.citation: Science. 2007 May 18;316(5827):1036-9
references.pmid: 17431139
references.citation: BJOG. 2009 Mar;116(4):511-7
references.pmid: 19250362
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 1997 Apr-Jun;17(2):126-35
references.pmid: 9107607
references.citation: Cancer Treat Res. 2007;138:201-17
references.pmid: 18080667
references.citation: Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009 Aug;53(2):289-95
references.pmid: 19301373
references.citation: Cancer Treat Res. 2007;138:3-11
references.pmid: 18080653
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 10;28(8):1284-6
references.pmid: 20142588
references.citation: Br J Health Psychol. 2009 Sep;14(Pt 3):437-58
references.pmid: 18718111
references.citation: Hum Reprod Update. 2010 Jul-Aug;16(4):395-414
references.pmid: 20124287
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2009 Feb 26;360(9):902-11
references.pmid: 19246362
references.citation: Cancer Nurs. 2001 Jun;24(3):172-9
references.pmid: 11409060
references.citation: Science. 2005 Apr 29;308(5722):697-702
references.pmid: 15860629
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jun 20;24(18):2917-31
references.pmid: 16651642