Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28589309›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

Influential factors on treatment decision making among patients with colorectal cancer: A scoping review.

Nicole M Cranley, Barbara Curbow, Thomas J George, Juliette Christie

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Black-White disparities across the colorectal cancer care continuum in the USA.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Information, deliberation, and decisional control preferences for participation in medical decision-making and its influencing factors among Chinese cancer patients.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  9. A qualitative examination of patient priorities and preferences during treatment decision-making for recurrent head and neck cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Nicole M CranleyDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 324 Rosenau Hall, 134 Dauer Drive, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. ncranley@email.unc.edu.
Barbara CurbowDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Thomas J GeorgeDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Juliette ChristieDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn recent years, a greater emphasis has been placed on shared decision-making (SDM) techniques between providers and patients with the goal of helping patients make informed decisions about their care and subsequently to improve patient health outcomes. Previous research has shown variability in treatment decision-making among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), and there is little comprehensive information available to help explain this variability. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the current state of the literature on factors that are influential in treatment decision-making among patients with CRC.

methodA priori search terms using Boolean connectors were used to examine PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and MEDLINE for relevant studies. Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study included patients with CRC and examination of influences on CRC treatment decision-making. All relevant data were extracted including, author, title and year, study methodology, and study results.

resultsFindings (n = 13) yielded influences in four areas: informational, patient treatment goals, patient role preferences, and relationship with provider. Quality of life and trust in physician were rated a high priority among patients when making decisions between different therapeutic options. Several studies found that patients wanted to be informed and involved but did not necessarily want to make autonomous treatment choices, with many preferring a more passive role.

conclusionsProviders who initiate a dialog to better understand their patients' treatment goals can establish rapport, increase patient understanding of treatment options, and help patients assume their desired role in their decision-making. Overall, there were a small number of studies that met all inclusion criteria with most used a cross-sectional design.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeCancerColorectal cancerMedical decision-makingProvider-patient communicationSystematic reviewTreatment decision-making

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.