Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2008
Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 119 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized Decision Making on Genomic Testing in Early Breast Cancer: Expanding the MINDACT Trial with Decision-Analytic Modeling.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Trial
- Clinicians' Perception and Management of Cancer Patients' Decision Making Burden.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Shared decision-making in radiotherapy for rectal cancer - A systematic review.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Healthcare Workers' Views on Approaches to Discussing Alternative Treatment Options in Multidisciplinary Cancer Care.Cureus · 2026Article
- Thematic Analysis of Clinician Documentation Surrounding Treatment Discussions and Decision-Making in Patients With Desmoid Tumors.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Instruments for Value Elucidation in Older Adults in Clinical Practice-A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- Bridging the care gap: patients' needs and experiences regarding shared decision-making in radiotherapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Design, implementation and usability analysis of patient empowerment in ADLIFE project via patient reported outcome measures and shared decision making.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Evaluating the impact of the Patient Preference Assessment Tool on clinicians' recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials.Psycho-oncology · 2021Article
- Beyond rationality: Expanding the practice of shared decision making in modern medicine.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Review
- Thyroid Cancer Patients' View of Clinician Professionalism and Multidisciplinary Approach to Their Management.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- Elicitation of preferences in the second half of the shared decision making process needs attention; a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Knowing what the patient wants: a hospital ethnography studying physician culture in shared decision making in the Netherlands.BMJ open · 2020Article
- [Physicians' awareness and assessment of shared decision making in oncology practice.]Revista espanola de salud publica · 2019Article
- "I need to know what makes somebody tick …": Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology.The oncologist · 2019Article
- Could shared decision making affect staying in hospital? A cross-sectional pilot study.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Article
- Discussing molecular testing in oncology care: Comparing patient and physician information preferences.Cancer · 2017Article
- Therapy preferences of patients with lung and colon cancer: a discrete choice experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient participation in treatment decision-making is being increasingly advocated, although cancer treatments are often guideline-driven. Trade-offs between benefits and side effects underlying guidelines are made by clinicians. Evidence suggests that clinicians are inaccurate at predicting patient values. The aim was to assess what role oncologists and cancer patients prefer in deciding about treatment, and how they view patient participation in treatment decision-making. Seventy disease-free cancer patients and 60 oncologists (surgical, radiation, and medical) were interviewed about their role preferences using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) and about their views on patient participation using closed- and open-ended questions. Almost all participants preferred treatment decisions to be the outcome of a shared process. Clinicians viewed participation more often as reaching an agreement, whereas 23% of patients defined participation exclusively as being informed. Of the participants, > or = 81% thought not all patients are able to participate and > or = 74% thought clinicians are not always able to weigh the pros and cons of treatment for patients, especially not quality as compared with length of life. Clinicians seemed reluctant to share probability information on the likely impact of adjuvant treatment. Clinicians should acknowledge the legitimacy of patients' values in treatment decisions. Guidelines should recommend elicitation of patient values at specific decision points.
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.