Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25619877›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

Was a decision made? An assessment of patient-clinician discordance in medical oncology encounters.

Aaron L Leppin, Katherine M Humeniuk, Cara Fernandez, Victor M Montori, Kathleen Yost, Ashok Kumbamu, Gail Geller, Jon C Tilburt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Development and Application of a Quality Assessment Tool for Oncological Question Prompt Lists.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Getting on the same page: Communication, patient involvement and shared understanding of "decisions" in oncology.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  7. 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.

Aaron L LeppinKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Katherine M HumeniukBiomedical Ethics Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Cara FernandezKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Victor M MontoriKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Kathleen YostDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ashok KumbamuBiomedical Ethics Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Gail GellerDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jon C TilburtDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

Women's Cancer ProgramP30CA015083 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Felicity Enders · 1985 to 2026
$151.3M
Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesUL1TR000135 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KHOSLA, SUNDEEP · 2012 to 2015
$41.2M
Assessing Patient Experience in Cancer Care: An Observational Communication StudyR01AT006515 · NCCIH · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI TILBURT, JON C · 2011 to 2015
$3.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000135NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000135NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT006515NCCIH NIH HHS R01AT006515NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015083
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self-reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter.

methodsWe surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single-item question, 'Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?' Answer options were 'yes' and 'no'. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners).

resultsPatients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance-adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance.

conclusionsPatients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision-making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.

Indexed as

Decision MakingMedical OncologyPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsSurveys and Questionnairescancer communicationdiscordancemedical decisionsshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID25619877
PMCPMC4515397

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.