Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2013 Jan-Feb;42(1):59-69.
doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2012.01426.x. Epub 2012 Nov 20.

The decision-making process of young adult women with cancer who considered fertility cryopreservation

Patricia E Hershberger  1 , Lorna Finnegan, Penny F Pierce, Bert Scoccia
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

The decision-making process of young adult women with cancer who considered fertility cryopreservation

Patricia E Hershberger et al. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2013 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To provide an in-depth description of the decision-making process that women who are diagnosed with cancer undergo as they decide whether to accept or decline fertility cryopreservation.

Design: A qualitative, grounded theory approach.

Setting and participants: Twenty-seven women (mean age = 29 years) who were diagnosed with cancer and were eligible for egg, embryo, or ovarian tissue cryopreservation were recruited from the Internet and two university centers.

Methods: Each woman participated in a semistructured interview by phone (n = 21) or e-mail (n = 6). Data were analyzed using the constant-comparative method to inductively ascertain the women's decision-making process. NVivo 8 software was used to assist with data retrieval and analysis.

Results: The decision-making process consists of four major phases that women experience to actively formulate a decision: identify, contemplate, resolve, and engage. In the identify phase, women acquire knowledge and experience a "double hit" scenario that is often devastating. Within the contemplate phase, five interrelated dimensions emerged including constructing and/or endorsing preferences and values and undergoing decisional debriefing sessions. A decision is reached in the resolve phase and carried out in the engage phase. Among the participants, 14 declined fertility cryopreservation and 13 accepted egg and/or embryo cryopreservation.

Conclusion: The descriptive theoretical framework clarifies the underlying processes that women with cancer undergo to decide about fertility cryopreservation. Quality of care for women with cancer can be improved by implementing appropriately timed information and tailored developmental and contextual counseling to support decision making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure

Dr. Scoccia reports the following conflicts: consultant for Ferring Pharmaceuticals and speaker for Abbott Laboratories. All other authors report no conflict of interest or relevant financial relationships.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Theoretical Framework of the Decision-Making Process of Young Adult Women with Cancer
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. AbdelHafez FF, Desai N, Abou-Setta AM, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2010;20(2):209–222. - PubMed
    1. Avis NE, Crawford S, Manuel J. Quality of life among younger women with breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2005;23(15):3322–3330. - PubMed
    1. Bekker HL. Using decision-making theory to inform clinical practice. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, editors. Shared decision-making in health care--achieving evidence-based patient choice. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 45–51.
    1. Buchbinder E. Beyond checking: experiences of the validation interview. Qualitative Social Work. 2011;10(1):106–122.
    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Social Science and Medicine. 1999;49(5):651–661. - PubMed

Publication types