Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative study explores decision-making in fertility preservation for parents of children with cancer, highlighting unmet needs.
Purpose To explore the experiences and needs of parents of children with cancer when making fertility preservation decisions and provide a basis for the development of targeted decision‐making aids. Methods Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted from May to August 2025. Fifteen parents of children with cancer were purposively recruited to participate in semistructured, in‐depth interviews. Data were analyzed using content analysis to systematically identify, categorize, and synthesize key themes. Results This study extracted three overarching themes and nine corresponding subthemes. Theme one, lack of information before decision‐making, encompassed subthemes of limited energy restricting active information seeking, cognitive misconceptions, and lack of professional information sources. Theme two, value preferences during decision‐making, which included subthemes of prioritizing life preservation, ensuring safety and efficacy, and shifting reproductive attitudes. Theme three, decision conflicts and regret, comprised subthemes of delayed information access, uncertainty regarding gonadal‐damage risks, and loss of children’s reproductive rights. Conclusions The study findings indicate that the decision not to pursue fertility preservation among parents of children with cancer is closely linked to multiple sources of conflict and unmet needs during the decision‐making process. Parents often prioritize their child’s immediate, life‐saving treatment and may subsequently experience decisional regret upon recognizing the importance of fertility preservation. These results highlight the need for healthcare providers to proactively identify and address parental decisional conflicts, providing tailored support in terms of knowledge, information, and counseling, thereby improving the overall quality of decision‐making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: