Oncofertility Decision Making: Findings from Israeli Adolescents and Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To date, few studies qualitatively investigate adolescent oncofertility decision making. This qualitative study seeks to understand the experiences of adolescents and parents in making oncofertility decisions within the pronatalist context of Israeli society. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Israel with adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19 years who were in remission for at least 2 months and had been offered fertility preservation (FP) of sperm, ova, or ovary cryopreservation, and their parents, separately. Transcripts were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-five interviews were conducted-16 with adolescents and 19 with parents-representing 20 cases of FP decision making. Adolescents and parents do not necessarily view decision making in the same way. Both parties mention a variety of factors in and justifications for FP decisions. Although most participants imagine the adolescent will use cryopreserved biological materials only if s/he experiences reproductive difficulties, nearly all participants do not recall having discussed what to do with these materials in the case of death. Many adolescents and parents feel comfortable waiting to take further action regarding adolescent fertility until the topic has greater relevance to the adolescent's life. Satisfaction with FP decision making is nearly unanimous, regardless of whether FP was pursued. CONCLUSION: As in other cultural contexts, Israeli adolescents and parents demonstrate multifaceted decision making with respect to oncofertility. A significant finding from this study suggests that health professionals shy from discussing posthumous planning of cryopreserved materials with adolescent cancer patients and their parents. Further investigation is warranted to determine whether this is a uniquely Israeli phenomenon, the cause for it, and how to overcome it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".