title: Reasons Why Young Women Accept or Decline Fertility Preservation After Cancer Diagnosis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To understand young women's reasons for accepting or declining fertility preservation after cancer diagnosis to aid in the development of theory regarding decision making in this context.
  
  
  METHODS
  Qualitative descriptive.
  
  
  METHODS
  Participants' homes or other private location.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-seven young women (mean age, 29 years) diagnosed with cancer and eligible for fertility preservation.
  
  
  METHODS
  Recruitment was conducted via the Internet and in fertility centers. Participants completed demographic questionnaires and in-depth semi-structured interviews. Tenets of grounded theory guided an inductive and deductive analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Young women's reasons for deciding whether to undergo fertility preservation were linked to four theoretical dimensions: Cognitive Appraisals, Emotional Responses, Moral Judgments, and Decision Partners. Women who declined fertility preservation described more reasons in the Cognitive Appraisals dimension, including financial cost and human risks, than women who accepted. In the Emotional Responses dimension, most women who accepted fertility preservation reported a strong desire for biological motherhood, whereas women who declined tended to report a strong desire for surviving cancer. Three participants who declined reported reasons linked to the Moral Judgments dimension, and most participants were influenced by Decision Partners, including husbands, boyfriends, parents, and clinicians.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The primary reason on which many but not all participants based decisions related to fertility preservation was whether the immediate emphasis of care should be placed on surviving cancer or securing options for future biological motherhood. Nurses and other clinicians should base education and counseling on the four theoretical dimensions to effectively support young women with cancer.
authors.forename: Patricia E
authors.initials: PE
authors.lastname: Hershberger
authors.forename: Heather
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Sipsma
authors.forename: Lorna
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Finnegan
authors.forename: Jennifer
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Hirshfeld-Cytron
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003657:Decision Making; D000066498:Emotional Adjustment; D005260:Female; D059247:Fertility Preservation / Q000523:psychology*; D006305:Health Status Indicators; D006801:Humans; D007398:Interpersonal Relations; D009013:Morale; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000523:psychology; D000067074:Peer Influence; D036301:Qualitative Research; D018570:Risk Assessment
keywords: decision-making; oncofertility; preference formation; qualitative research; survivorship; theory development
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2013 Jan;99(1):37-43
references.pmid: 23083924
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2010 Jun;94(1):149-55
references.pmid: 19406395
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2014 Aug;29(8):1721-9
references.pmid: 24916435
references.citation: Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Oct;26(5):372-80
references.pmid: 25160517
references.citation: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Feb;173:13-8
references.pmid: 24315568
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 1;29(13):1670-7
references.pmid: 21444865
references.citation: Psychooncology. 2004 May;13(5):295-308
references.pmid: 15133771
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2012 Aug;27(8):2413-9
references.pmid: 22674206
references.citation: JAMA. 2009 Jul 8;302(2):195-7
references.pmid: 19584351
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2012 Jul;27(7):2076-81
references.pmid: 22552688
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2010 Nov;94(6):2396-8
references.pmid: 20447625
references.citation: Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2013;27(4):257-75
references.pmid: 24552086
references.citation: Oncology (Williston Park). 1991 Nov;5(11):23-30; discussion 30-1, 35
references.pmid: 1837227
references.citation: BJOG. 2012 Aug;119(9):1049-57
references.pmid: 22642563
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2014 May;101(5):1237-43
references.pmid: 24684955
references.citation: Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2008 Jun;12(3):467-76
references.pmid: 18515245
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2013 Jan;77:156-63
references.pmid: 23219164
references.citation: Res Nurs Health. 2000 Jun;23(3):246-55
references.pmid: 10871540
references.citation: Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Jul;27(1):96-103
references.pmid: 23669017
references.citation: Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40
references.pmid: 10940958
references.citation: Cancer. 2013 Nov 15;119(22):4044-50
references.pmid: 24037854
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2004 Oct 15;22(20):4174-83
references.pmid: 15483028
references.citation: Health Care Women Int. 2006 Jan;27(1):94-110
references.pmid: 16338742
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2014 Jun;101(6):1582-3
references.pmid: 24794310
references.citation: J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2013 Jan-Feb;42(1):59-69
references.pmid: 23167639
references.citation: Res Nurs Health. 2010 Feb;33(1):77-84
references.pmid: 20014004
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Apr;71(1):125-35
references.pmid: 18242040
references.citation: Hum Reprod. 2010 Jan;25(1):66-73
references.pmid: 19861328
references.citation: Soc Sci Med. 2012 May;74(10):1536-43
references.pmid: 22445765
references.citation: Clin Breast Cancer. 2012 Apr;12(2):127-32
references.pmid: 22444719
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Aug 1;23(22):5155-65
references.pmid: 16051957
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Oct;81(1):53-62
references.pmid: 20060677
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jul 1;31(19):2500-10
references.pmid: 23715580
references.citation: Fertil Steril. 2010 Sep;94(4):1457-1459
references.pmid: 19591985