ArticlePatient preference and adherence2017
Treatment decision-making among breast cancer patients in Malaysia.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment: A systematic review.Psycho-oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Quality of life and psychosocial challenges in metastatic breast cancer: the need for tailored interventions in Turkiye.Future science OA · 2025Article
- Facilitators and barriers to decision-making for hospital treatment among patients diagnosed with breast cancer in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: A qualitative urban-based study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Experiences of Indonesian women with breast cancer underwent treatment decision-making: A qualitative study.Belitung nursing journal · 2024Article
- Barriers of and strategies for shared decision-making implementation in the care of metastatic breast cancer: A qualitative study among patients and healthcare professionals in an Asian country.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Decision-making about mastectomy among Chinese women with breast cancer: a mixed-methods study protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Enhanced Directed Random Walk for the Identification of Breast Cancer Prognostic Markers from Multiclass Expression Data.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Use of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Among Post-Menopausal Breast Cancer Patients in Malaysia.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Patients' preferences for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer treatments in Japan.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2019Article
- Attitudes toward concordance and self-efficacy in decision making: a cross-sectional study on pharmacist-patient consultations.Patient preference and adherence · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated breast cancer patients' involvement level in the treatment decision-making process and the concordance between patients' and physician's perspectives in decision-making. PARTICIPANTS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted involving physicians and newly diagnosed breast cancer patients from three public/teaching hospitals in Malaysia. The Control Preference Scale (CPS) was administered to patients and physicians, and the Krantz Health Opinion Survey (KHOS) was completed by the patients alone. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the association between sociodemographic characteristics, the patients' involvement in treatment decision-making, and patients' preference for behavioral involvement and information related to their disease.
resultsThe majority of patients preferred to share decision-making with their physicians (47.5%), while the second largest group preferred being passive (42.6%) and a small number preferred being active (9.8%). However, the physicians perceived that the majority of patients preferred active decision-making (56.9%), followed by those who desired shared decision-making (32.8%), and those who preferred passive decision-making (10.3%). The overall concordance was 26.5% (54 of 204 patient-physician dyads). The median of preference for information score and behavioral involvement score was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] =3-5) and 2 (IQR =2-3), respectively. In univariate analysis, the ethnicity and educational qualification of patients were significantly associated with the patients' preferred role in the process of treatment decision-making and the patients' preference for information seeking (
conclusionPhysicians failed to understand patients' perspectives and preferences in treatment decision-making. The concordance between physicians' perception and patients' perception was quite low as the physicians perceived that more than half of the patients were active in treatment decision-making. In actuality, more than half of patients perceived that they shared decision-making with their physicians.
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.