Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41090273›Full record

ArticleWomen's health nursing (Seoul, Korea)2025

Experiences of elective oocyte cryopreservation among unmarried women in Korea: a descriptive phenomenological study.

Euna Park, Da-In Kang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Women's health nursing (Seoul, Korea), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Euna ParkCollege of Nursing, Pukyong National University, Busan, Korea.
Da-In KangCollege of Nursing, Dong-eui Institute of Technology, Busan, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe increasing prevalence of elective oocyte cryopreservation (EOC) for fertility preservation has generated growing interest worldwide. This study explores the experiences of unmarried women undergoing EOC.

methodsThis descriptive phenomenological study sought to investigate the meaning and structure of the EOC experience among healthy unmarried women. Five unmarried women who had undergone EOC participated in the study. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and observations via an online platform. Interviews were conducted in a 1:2 format between participant and researcher, with each participant interviewed once or twice. The primary interview question was, "Please tell us about the circumstances under which you decided to undergo EOC."

resultsFrom 65 units of meaning, six themes and 19 subthemes emerged: an innovative tool that expands life choices; a process that requires readjusting life priorities; a conflict felt at the boundary between tradition and change; fierce information search and perseverance amidst the turmoil of body and mind; intertwined with possibilities, constraints, and expectations for the future; and feeling uncertain about freedom of choice and taking initiative for the future.

conclusionUnmarried women have experienced various difficulties in the process of EOC depending on the situation related to the passage of time. They need to have accurate information to perform this, and there needs to be discussions on how to use or dispose of the oocytes when they are not in use. In addition, in order to solve the problem of low birth rates, there is a need to increase the cost support for EOC.

Indexed as

CryopreservationFertility PreservationOocytesSingle PersonAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchRepublic of KoreaCryopreservationOocytesQualitative researchSingle person

Identifiers

PMID41090273
PMCPMC12558642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.