|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|2632339||1136945||2016||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود کنید|
ObjectiveTo understand young women’s reasons for accepting or declining fertility preservation after cancer diagnosis to aid in the development of theory regarding decision making in this context.DesignQualitative descriptive.SettingParticipants’ homes or other private location.ParticipantsTwenty-seven young women (mean age, 29 years) diagnosed with cancer and eligible for fertility preservation.MethodsRecruitment was conducted via the Internet and in fertility centers. Participants completed demographic questionnaires and in-depth semi-structured interviews. Tenets of grounded theory guided an inductive and deductive analysis.ResultsYoung women’s reasons for deciding whether to undergo fertility preservation were linked to four theoretical dimensions: Cognitive Appraisals, Emotional Responses, Moral Judgments, and Decision Partners. Women who declined fertility preservation described more reasons in the Cognitive Appraisals dimension, including financial cost and human risks, than women who accepted. In the Emotional Responses dimension, most women who accepted fertility preservation reported a strong desire for biological motherhood, whereas women who declined tended to report a strong desire for surviving cancer. Three participants who declined reported reasons linked to the Moral Judgments dimension, and most participants were influenced by Decision Partners, including husbands, boyfriends, parents, and clinicians.ConclusionThe primary reason on which many but not all participants based decisions related to fertility preservation was whether the immediate emphasis of care should be placed on surviving cancer or securing options for future biological motherhood. Nurses and other clinicians should base education and counseling on the four theoretical dimensions to effectively support young women with cancer.
Journal: Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing - Volume 45, Issue 1, January–February 2016, Pages 123–134