Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23052911›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2013

A theory-based decision aid for patients with cancer: results of feasibility and acceptability testing of DecisionKEYS for cancer.

Patricia J Hollen, Richard J Gralla, Randy A Jones, Christopher Y Thomas, David R Brenin, Geoffrey R Weiss, Anneke T Schroen, Gina R Petroni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Patricia J HollenUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903-3387, USA. p.hollen@virginia.edu
Richard J Gralla
Randy A Jones
Christopher Y Thomas
David R Brenin
Geoffrey R Weiss
Anneke T Schroen
Gina R Petroni

Funding

Women's Oncology Program - WONP30CA044579 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI Thomas P. Loughran · 1987 to 2026
$72.1M
Decision Aid for Patients with Advanced Lung CancerR21NR009346 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI HOLLEN, PATRICIA JEAN · 2005 to 2006
$450k
Decision Making in Patients with Advanced Prostate CancerR21CA131754 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI JONES, RANDY ALLEN · 2008 to 2009
$412k
NCI NIH HHS 1R21CA131754-01NCI NIH HHS P30 CA044579NCI NIH HHS P30CA44579NCI NIH HHS R21 CA131754NINR NIH HHS 1R21NR009346-01A1NINR NIH HHS R21 NR009346
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAppropriate utilization of treatment is a goal for all patients undergoing cancer treatment. Proper treatment maximizes benefit and limits exposure to unnecessary measures. This report describes findings of the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a short, clinic-based decision aid and presents an in-depth clinical profile of the participants.

methodsThis descriptive study used a prospective, quantitative approach to obtain the feasibility and acceptability of a decision aid (DecisionKEYS for Balancing Choices) for use in clinical settings. It combined results of trials of patients with three different common malignancies. All groups used the same decision aid series. Participants included 80 patients with solid tumors (22 with newly diagnosed breast cancer, 19 with advanced prostate cancer, and 39 with advanced lung cancer) and their 80 supporters as well as their physicians and nurses, for a total of 160 participants and 10 health professionals.

resultsThe decision aid was highly acceptable to patient and supporter participants in all diagnostic groups. It was feasible for use in clinic settings; the overall value was rated highly. Of six physicians, all found the interactive format with the help of the nurse as feasible and acceptable. Nurses also rated the decision aid favorably.

conclusionsThis intervention provides the opportunity to enhance decision making about cancer treatment and warrants further study including larger and more diverse groups. Strengths of the study included a theoretical grounding, feasibility testing of a practical clinic-based intervention, and summative evaluation of acceptability of the intervention by patient and supporter pairs. Further research also is needed to test the effectiveness of the decision aid in diverse clinical settings and to determine if this intervention can decrease overall costs.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient Acceptance of Health CareProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID23052911
PMCPMC3625630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.