ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2018
Decision aid use during post-biopsy consultations for localized prostate cancer.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of Online Interactive Decision Tools on Women's Decision-Making Regarding Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Experiences of Using Patient Decision Aids for Decisions About Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Aggregation of Qualitative Studies.Cancer nursingPooled it
- Head to head randomized trial of two decision aids for prostate cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Trial
- Would shared decision-making be useful in breast cancer screening programmes? A qualitative study using focus group discussions to gather evidence from French women with different socioeconomic backgrounds.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Learning from the "tail end" of de-implementation: the case of chemical castration for localized prostate cancer.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Perceived barriers to the adoption of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of community and academic urologists.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Resisting recommended treatment for prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience of possible overdiagnosis.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Decision aid use during post-biopsy consultations for localized prostate cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDecision Aids (DAs) effectively translate medical evidence for patients but are not routinely used in clinical practice. Little is known about how DAs are used during patient-clinician encounters.
objectiveTo characterize the content and communicative function of high-quality DAs during diagnostic clinic visits for prostate cancer.
participants252 men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had received a DA, 45 treating physicians at 4 US Veterans Administration urology clinics.
methodsQualitative analysis of transcribed audio recordings was used to inductively develop categories capturing content and function of all direct references to DAs (booklet talk). The presence or absence of any booklet talk per transcript was also calculated.
resultsBooklet talk occurred in 55% of transcripts. Content focused on surgical procedures (36%); treatment choice (22%); and clarifying risk classification (17%). The most common function of booklet talk was patient corroboration of physicians' explanations (42%), followed by either physician or patient acknowledgement that the patient had the booklet. Codes reflected the absence of DA use for shared decision-making. In regression analysis, predictors of booklet talk were fewer years of patient education (P = .027) and more time in the encounter (P = .027). Patient race, DA type, time reading the DA, physician informing quality and physician age did not predict booklet talk.
conclusionsResults show that good decision aids, systematically provided to patients, appeared to function not to open up deliberations about how to balance benefits and harms of competing treatments, but rather to allow patients to ask narrow technical questions about recommended treatments.
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.