ArticleCancer management and research2025
Decision-Making About Fertility Preservation After Cancer Diagnosis: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Experiences and Perspectives.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Algorithmic Prognostication in Female Oncofertility Counseling: Ethical Challenges of Bias, Autonomy, and Predictive Uncertainty.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The experience of fertility preservation decision-making in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Improving access to fertility treatment in Asia Pacific: consensus from an expert forum.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Review
- Fertility preservation in women with cancer: shared decision-making and the essential role of nurses.Women's health nursing (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rising cancer incidence in reproductive-aged individuals, coupled with improved long-term survival, indicates an increasing need for fertility preservation (FP) in this population. However, limited evidence exists on the decision-making of FP from the perspectives of cancer patients in a Chinese context. This qualitative study aimed to examine the patient perceptions of the FP decision and to identify barriers and unmet needs, addressing a significant gap within evolving precision oncology and fertility care contexts. Methods: Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 cancer patients from a tertiary hospital in Hunan Province, China, from March 2024 to June 2024. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using Colaizzi's seven-step analysis. Results: Three themes and nine subthemes were identified: insufficient information support (lack of information sources, inappropriate timing of information disclosure, and poor doctor-patient communication); personal and family concerns (impact on cancer treatment, impact on offspring health, marital and reproductive status, financial constraints); ethical dilemmas (conflicts with survival needs, and emotional challenges). Conclusion: Young cancer patients predominantly aspire to preserve fertility but face multiple decision-making challenges. To address these challenges, healthcare professionals should fully understand the patients' needs, provide accurate and timely information tailored to their needs, and enhance communication skills to facilitate informed decision-making regarding FP, with important implications for clinical practice and public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.