Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23229908›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2013

Breast cancer treatment decision-making: are we asking too much of patients?

Jennifer C Livaudais, Rebeca Franco, Kezhen Fei, Nina A Bickell

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03350854 (An Intervention to Improve Decision Role Concordance Amongst Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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.

NCT03350854 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

An Intervention to Improve Decision Role Concordance Amongst Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of UtahRan2016 to 2017Enrolled100ConditionsBreast CancerArmsPatient Preference in Treatment Decision Making
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Does a decision aid for prostate cancer affect different aspects of decisional regret, assessed with new regret scales? A randomized, controlled trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016
    Trial
  4. Decision regret in patients with rectal cancer undergoing multimodal therapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Culturally appropriate patient-provider communication methods for Black women with breast cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Shared decision-making and the lessons learned about decision regret in cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Local Therapy Decisional Regret in Older Women With Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jennifer C LivaudaisDepartment of Health Evidence and Policy, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1077, New York, NY 10029, USA. jclivaudais@gmail.com
Rebeca Franco
Kezhen Fei
Nina A Bickell

Funding

Patient Assistance to Reduce Breast Cancer DisparitiesR01CA107051 · NCI · MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE OF NYU · PI BICKELL, NINA A. · 2004 to 2009
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA107051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePhysicians are mandated to offer treatment choices to patients, yet not all patients may want the responsibility that entails. We evaluated predisposing factors for, and long-term consequences of, too much and not enough perceived decision-making responsibility among breast cancer patients.

designLongitudinal assessment, with measurements collected just after surgical treatment (baseline) and 6-month follow-up.

participantsWomen with early-stage breast cancer treated surgically at eight NYC hospitals, recruited for a randomized controlled trial of patient assistance to improve receipt of adjuvant treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Using logistic regression, we explored multivariable-adjusted associations between perceived treatment decision-making responsibility and a) baseline knowledge of treatment benefit and b) 6-month decision regret.

resultsOf 368 women aged 28-89 years, 72 % reported a "reasonable amount", 21 % "too much", and 7 % "not enough" responsibility for treatment decision-making at baseline. Health literacy problems were most common among those with "not enough" (68 %) and "too much" responsibility (62 %). Only 29 % of women had knowledge of treatment benefits; 40 % experienced 6-month decision regret. In multivariable analysis, women reporting "too much" vs. "reasonable amount" of responsibility had less treatment knowledge ([OR] = 0.44, [95 % CI] = 0.20-0.99; model c = 0.7343;p < 0.01) and more decision regret ([OR] = 2.,91 [95 % CI] = 1.40-6.06; model c = 0.7937;p < 0.001). Findings were similar for women reporting "not enough" responsibility, though not statistically significant.

conclusionToo much perceived responsibility for breast cancer treatment decisions was associated with poor baseline treatment knowledge and 6-month decision regret. Health literacy problems were common, suggesting that health care professionals find alternative ways to communicate with low health literacy patients, enabling them to assume the desired amount of decision-making responsibility, thereby reducing decision regret.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedNew YorkPatient ParticipationSelf Efficacy

Identifiers

PMID23229908
PMCPMC3631071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.