2.2.1. Data collection

After an iterative process of reviewing and revising the content with the project and steering group, the first draft was evaluated by an organization with experience in adjusting medical texts for low literacy patients (www.stichtingmakkelijklezen.nl). The second draft was evaluated with female cancer survivors who made a decision regarding FP in the past, and with patient advocates. They were recruited from an academic medical center and patient associations. All interviews were conducted by M.B., and the number of interviews was determined by data saturation. The first part of the interview was unstructured according to the think aloud method. ²³ The second part was semi‐structured, and participants were asked about the content, layout, comprehensibility, usability, and acceptability of the DA. ²⁴ , ²⁵ , ²⁶ Based on the received feedback, a third draft was developed and alpha‐tested with professionals working in oncofertility care, as suggested by Coulter, ¹⁹ recruited from the steering group. They were also invited for an interview, conducted by M.B., using the think aloud method, ²³ and were asked to fill in a questionnaire with questions about the content, clearness, and usefulness, and were asked to rate the DA. ²⁵ , ²⁶ The number of interviews was, again, determined by data saturation. Finally, a revised fourth draft was quantitatively evaluated with female cancer survivors and patient advocates using a questionnaire similar to the professionals' questionnaire. They were, again, recruited from an academic medical center and patient associations. In addition to the quantitative evaluation, the quality of the fourth draft was tested against the 64 IPDAS criteria.