Patients’ and providers’ perspectives on non-urgent egg freezing decision-making: a thematic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The decision to undergo non-urgent egg freezing (EF) is complex for patients and providers supporting them. Though prior studies have explored patient perspectives, no study has also included the separate perspectives of providers. METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured individual interviews exploring the decision to undergo EF. Participants included patients considering EF at one academic fertility clinic and providers who counsel patients about EF from across Canada. Data analysis was accomplished using thematic analysis. Data saturation was met after interviewing 13 providers and 12 patients. FINDINGS: Four themes were identified and explored, illuminating ways in which patients and providers navigate decision-making around EF: (1) patients viewed EF as a 'back-up plan' for delaying the decision about whether to have children, while providers were hesitant to present EF in this way given the uncertainty of success; (2) providers viewed ovarian reserve testing as essential while patients believed it unnecessarily complicated the decision; (3) patients and providers cited a need for change in broader societal attitudes regarding EF since social stigma was a significant barrier to decision-making; and (4) commonality and peer support were desired by patients to assist in their decision, although some providers were hesitant to recommend this to patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the decision to undergo EF is complex and individual patient values play a significant role. In some areas, there is disconnect between providers and patients in their views on how to navigate EF decision-making, and these should be addressed in discussions between providers and patients to improve shared decision-making.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".