ArticlePloS one2016
Shared Decision-Making in Oncology - A Qualitative Analysis of Healthcare Providers' Views on Current Practice.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making for patients with cancer and health care providers based on the COM-B model: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Empowering patient choice: a systematic review of decision aids for benign prostatic hyperplasia.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in oncology: a systematic review of the literature.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Pooled it
- A Brief Web-Based Person-Centered Care Group Training Program for the Management of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial in Spain.JMIR medical education · 2025Trial
- Effects of a shared decision-making implementation programme on patient-centred communication in oncology-Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Trial
- Major influencing factors on routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.Implementation science : IS · 2021Trial
- "It Depends on the Situation": Variability in How Surgical Oncologists Elicit and Integrate Patient Values.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Patients and healthcare professionals' perspectives on the implementation of shared decision making in multiple myeloma: a multinational qualitative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Insights of shared decision-making and personalized treatment in orthopedics - A qualitative systematic review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Benefits and Challenges of Using Patient Preferences as a Tool for Clinical Decision Making in Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meetings within the National Health Service: A Qualitative Study.Oncology research and treatment · 2025Article
- Bridging the care gap: patients' needs and experiences regarding shared decision-making in radiotherapy.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- The decision aid is the easy part: workflow challenges of shared decision making in cancer care.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Multi-pilot implementation experiences of patient-centered pathology reports: lessons learned for the advancement of patient-centered tools for cancer decision-making.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- How shared is decision-making in multidisciplinary tumour conferences with patient participation? An observational study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Observational
- Involving patients and their families in deciding to use next generation sequencing: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. oncologists.Patient education and counseling · 2021Article
- Article
- "I need to know what makes somebody tick …": Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology.The oncologist · 2019Article
- Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: study protocol of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite an increased awareness of shared decision-making (SDM) and its prominent position on the health policy agenda, its implementation in routine care remains a challenge in Germany. In order to overcome this challenge, it is important to understand healthcare providers' views regarding SDM and to take their perspectives and opinions into account in the development of an implementation program. The present study aimed at exploring a) the attitudes of different healthcare providers regarding SDM in oncology and b) their experiences with treatment decisions in daily practice. MATERIAL AND
methodsA qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and individual interviews with different healthcare providers at the University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis and descriptive statistics.
resultsN = 4 focus groups with a total of N = 25 participants and N = 17 individual interviews were conducted. Attitudes regarding SDM varied greatly between the different participants, especially concerning the definition of SDM, the attitude towards the degree of patient involvement in decision-making and assumptions about when SDM should take place. Experiences on how treatment decisions are currently made varied. Negative experiences included time and structural constraints, and a lack of (multidisciplinary) communication. Positive experiences comprised informed patients, involvement of relatives and a good physician-patient relationship.
conclusionThe results show that German healthcare providers in oncology have a range of attitudes that currently function as barriers towards the implementation of SDM. Also, their experiences on how decision-making is currently done reveal difficulties in actively involving patients in decision-making processes. It will be crucial to take these attitudes and experiences seriously and to subsequently disentangle existing misconceptions in future implementation programs.
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.