Shared Decision-Making on Fertility Preservation in Reproductive-Aged Women with Gynecological Cancer: A Qualitative Study of Patients’ and Health Care Professionals’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF), this study aimed to explore the experiences, perceived barriers, and support needs of both reproductive-aged women with gynecological cancer and health care professionals (HCPs) during the process of fertility preservation (FP) shared decision-making (SDM), in order to identify alignments and discrepancies between the two groups. Patients and methods: A descriptive phenomenological qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with reproductive-aged women diagnosed with gynecological cancers and HCPs from gynecology, oncology, and reproductive medicine specialties. Patients were recruited via hospital records during outpatient visits or hospitalization, and professionals via departmental announcements and invitations. The ODSF informed the development of the interview guide. Data were analyzed using Colaizzi's descriptive phenomenological method. Results: A total of 11 reproductive-aged women with gynecological cancer and 12 multidisciplinary HCPs participated in the study. Among the HCPs, 7 were physicians and 5 were nurses. Analysis yielded 35 meaning unites, which were clustered into two main themes: gaps and fragmentation in meeting decisional needs and facilitators of high-quality fertility preservation decision support. Conclusion: This study suggests that FP SDM among reproductive-aged women with gynecological cancer in China may be influenced by multiple challenges, including limited and untimely information, fragmented referral mechanisms, psychological distress, financial concerns, and sociocultural factors. Multidisciplinary team involvement, nursing support, and culturally adapted decision aids may help enhance patient participation, support preference-sensitive decision-making, and reduce decisional conflict. These findings indicate that integrating structured counseling processes, optimizing multidisciplinary pathways, and developing personalized, culturally sensitive decision aids may contribute to more patient-centered fertility care.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".