Post-Implementation of Routine Sexual Function Screening for Pediatrics Cancer

Phase-Based Progress Estimates
1
Effectiveness
1
Safety
University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora, CO
Pediatrics Cancer+1 More
Sexual Function Screening Approach - Behavioral
Eligibility
< 65
All Sexes
What conditions do you have?
Select

Study Summary

Prior research determined adolescent and young adult-aged childhood cancer survivor (AYA-CCS) and medical provider acceptability of the SexFS Brief in a controlled research setting. Development of an acceptable, effective, and feasible screening approach will result in improved recognition of SD in AYA patients with and surviving childhood cancer.

Eligible Conditions

  • Pediatrics Cancer
  • Survival Rate (Survivorship)

Treatment Effectiveness

Effectiveness Progress

1 of 3

Study Objectives

1 Primary · 15 Secondary · Reporting Duration: 5 years

5 years
Adaptations to the sexual function screening approach
Adoption of the screening tool by medical stakeholders (self-reported results discussion)
Adoption of the screening tool by medical stakeholders (self-reported results review)
Adoption, as measured by proportion of results that are viewed (objective measure)
Comparison of healthcare needs being met before and after intervention implementation
Comparison of patient satisfaction before and after intervention implementation
Comparison of sexual function communication before and after intervention implementation
Contextual factors influencing implementation success
Evaluate implementation of the standardized screening approach by fidelity (direct observation)
Evaluate implementation of the standardized screening approach by fidelity (patient-reported)
Incidence of documented sexual function concerns
Patient-reported acceptability of the sexual function screening approach
Patient-reported appropriateness of the sexual function screening approach
Patient-reported feasibility of the sexual function screening approach
Provider-reported acceptability of the sexual function screening approach
Provider-reported appropriateness of the sexual function screening approach
Provider-reported feasibility of the sexual function screening approach
Reach - Reason for missed screening
Reach - proportion of eligible patients who completed sexual function screening
Referral patterns for sexual function concerns
Representativeness - sociodemographic characteristics of patients who received and did not receive screening

Trial Safety

Trial Design

2 Treatment Groups

Pre-Implementation of Routine Sexual Function Screening (Baseline)
1 of 2
Post-Implementation of Routine Sexual Function Screening
1 of 2
Active Control
Experimental Treatment

205 Total Participants · 2 Treatment Groups

Primary Treatment: Post-Implementation of Routine Sexual Function Screening · No Placebo Group · N/A

Post-Implementation of Routine Sexual Function Screening
Behavioral
Experimental Group · 1 Intervention: Sexual Function Screening Approach · Intervention Types: Behavioral
Pre-Implementation of Routine Sexual Function Screening (Baseline)NoIntervention Group · 1 Intervention: Pre-Implementation of Routine Sexual Function Screening (Baseline) · Intervention Types:

Trial Logistics

Trial Timeline

Approximate Timeline
Screening: ~3 weeks
Treatment: Varies
Reporting: 5 years
Closest Location: University of Colorado Hospital · Aurora, CO
Photo of aurora  1Photo of aurora  2Photo of aurora  3
2010First Recorded Clinical Trial
1 TrialsResearching Pediatrics Cancer
238 CompletedClinical Trials

Eligibility Criteria

Age < 65 · All Participants · 9 Total Inclusion Criteria

Mark “yes” if the following statements are true for you:
You are willing to comply with all study procedures and be available for the duration of the study.
You have been treated with chemotherapy for cancer.
You must have an appointment at one of four clinical sites: CHCO HOPE Survivorship Program, CHCO Oncology Clinic, CHCO Neuro-Oncology Clinic, Seattle Children's Hospital Survivorship Program.

About The Reviewer

Michael Gill preview

Michael Gill - B. Sc.

First Published: October 9th, 2021

Last Reviewed: August 12th, 2022

Michael Gill holds a Bachelors of Science in Integrated Science and Mathematics from McMaster University. During his degree he devoted considerable time modeling the pharmacodynamics of promising drug candidates. Since then, he has leveraged this knowledge of the investigational new drug ecosystem to help his father navigate clinical trials for multiple myeloma, an experience which prompted him to co-found Power Life Sciences: a company that helps patients access randomized controlled trials.