ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2016
Wilfully out of sight? A literature review on the effectiveness of cancer-related decision aids and implementation strategies.
Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Endocrine Treatment and Targeted Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails.Nursing open · 2021Pooled it
- Patient and Clinician Decision Support to Increase Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices.Implementation science : IS · 2021Trial
- Experimental designs used for optimising the effects of health interventions and implementation strategies: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- A bibliographic review of sustainability research output and investment in 10 leading public health journals across three time periods.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
- Implementing a patient decision aid, a process evaluation of a large-scale pre- and post-implementation trial.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Primary Care Providers' Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- Adopting patient-centred tools in cancer care: role of evidence and other factors.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
- Are publicly available internet resources enabling women to make informed fertility preservation decisions before starting cancer treatment: an environmental scan?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- Organizational- and system-level characteristics that influence implementation of shared decision-making and strategies to address them - a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
- A Review of Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids in Radiation Oncology.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2017Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is evidence to suggest that decision aids improve a number of patient outcomes. However, little is known about the progression of research effort in this area over time. This literature review examined the volume of research published in 2000, 2007 and 2014 which tested the effectiveness of decision aids in improving cancer patient outcomes, coded by cancer site and decision type being targeted. These numbers were compared with the volume of research examining the effectiveness of strategies to increase the adoption of decision aids by healthcare providers.
methodsA literature review of intervention studies was undertaken. Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The search was limited to human studies published in English, French, or German. Abstracts were assessed against eligibility criteria by one reviewer and a random sample of 20 % checked by a second. Eligible intervention studies in the three time periods were categorised by: i) whether they tested the effectiveness of decision aids, coded by cancer site and decision type, and ii) whether they tested strategies to increase healthcare provider adoption of decision aids.
resultsOver the three time points assessed, increasing research effort has been directed towards testing the effectiveness of decision aids in improving patient outcomes (p < 0.0001). The number of studies on decision aids for cancer screening or prevention increased statistically significantly (p < 0.0001) whereas the number of studies on cancer treatment did not (p = 1.00). The majority of studies examined the effectiveness of decision aids for prostate (n = 10), breast (n = 9) or colon cancer (n = 7). Only two studies assessed the effectiveness of implementation strategies to increase healthcare provider adoption of decision aids.
conclusionsWhile the number of studies testing the effectiveness of decision aids has increased, the majority of research has focused on screening and prevention decision aids for only a few cancer sites. This neglects a number of cancer populations, as well as other areas of cancer care such as treatment decisions. Also, given the apparent effectiveness of decision aids, more effort needs to be made to implement this evidence into meaningful benefits for patients.
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.