Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2009
Contextual factors in shared decision making: a randomised controlled trial in women with a strong suspicion of breast cancer.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails.Nursing open · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- "It's Valid and Reliable" Is Not Enough: Critical Appraisal of Reporting of Measures in Trials Evaluating Patient Decision Aids.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2014Pooled it
- Strategies for reducing regional variation in the use of surgery: a systematic review.Annals of surgery · 2014Pooled it
- Patients' perceptions of sharing in decisions: a systematic review of interventions to enhance shared decision making in routine clinical practice.The patient · 2012Pooled it
- Improving Breast Cancer Surgical Treatment Decision Making: The iCanDecide Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2018Trial
- Patient focused interventions and communication in the surgical clinic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review.PloS one · 2022Article
- Cancer patients' perspective on shared decision-making and decision aids in oncology.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Article
- Reduced Elective Operation Rates and High Patient Satisfaction After the Implementation of Decision Aids in Patients with Gallstones or an Inguinal Hernia.World journal of surgery · 2019Article
- A Review of Decision Aids for Patients Considering More Than One Type of Invasive Treatment.The Journal of surgical research · 2019Review
- Implementation of shared decision-making in oncology: development and pilot study of a nurse-led decision-coaching programme for women with ductal carcinoma in situ.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Article
- Assessment of Decisional Conflict about the Treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome, Comparing Patients and Physicians.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2016Article
- Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2013Review
- Shared decision-making to improve attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder care.Patient education and counseling · 2013Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decision aids in North American breast cancer outpatients have been shown to assist with treatment decision making and reduce decisional conflict. To date, appropriate delivery formats to effectively increase patient participation in newly diagnosed breast cancer inpatients have not been investigated in the context of German health care provision. The impact of a decision aid intervention was studied in patients (n=111) with a strong suspicion of breast cancer in a randomised controlled trial. The primary outcome variable was decisional conflict. Participants were followed up 1 week post-intervention with a retention rate of 92%. Analyses revealed that the intervention group felt better informed (eta(p)(2)=0.06) but did not experience an overall reduction in decisional conflict as compared with the control group. The intervention had no effect on uptake rates of treatment options, length of consultation with the surgeon, time point of treatment decision making, perceived involvement in decision making, neither decision related nor general patient satisfaction. Patients who received the decision aid intervention experienced a small benefit with regards to how informed they felt about advantages and disadvantages of relevant treatment options. Results are discussed in terms of contextual factors and individual differences as moderators of treatment decision aid effectiveness.
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.