Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25829374›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Protocol for a pre-implementation and post-implementation study on shared decision-making in the surgical treatment of women with early-stage breast cancer.

Wilma Savelberg, Albine Moser, Marjolein Smidt, Liesbeth Boersma, Christel Haekens, Trudy van der Weijden

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Wilma SavelbergOncology Center, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Albine MoserZuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Marjolein SmidtOncology Center, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Liesbeth BoersmaDepartment of Radiotherapy, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Christel HaekensOncology Center, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Trudy van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients' informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting. METHODS/

designThis paper concerns a pre-implementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by the Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC) ethics committee. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at national conferences. Findings will be used to finalise a multi-faceted implementation strategy to test the implementation of SDM and a patient decision aid in terms of cost-effectiveness, in a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4879.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient ParticipationAttitude of Health PersonnelBreast NeoplasmsClinical ProtocolsDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMastectomy, SegmentalNeoplasm StagingOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchResearch DesignDecision support TechniquesPatient participationPatient preferencesQuality improvementShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID25829374
PMCPMC4386223

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.