ArticleHealth communication2019
Treatment Recommendations in Oncology Visits: Implications for Patient Agency and Physician Authority.
Article in Health communication, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
- Collusion in the Clinic: Constructing Patients' Moral Responsibility to Treat Cancer.Qualitative health research · 2026Article
- High-Stakes Treatment Negotiations Gone Awry: The Importance of Interactions for Understanding Treatment Advocacy and Patient Resistance.Journal of health and social behavior · 2024Article
- The Role of Health Care Communication in Treatment Outcomes.Annual review of linguistics · 2023Article
- Death and the treatment imperative: Decision-making in late-stage cancer.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2022Article
- Trust and shared decision-making among individuals with multiple myeloma: A qualitative study.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System-A Mixed-Methods Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Patient-Initiated Pain Expressions: Interactional Asymmetries and Consequences for Cancer Care.Health communication · 2020Article
- The duality of option-listing in cancer care.Patient education and counseling · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Although oncology is a major site for clinician‒patient treatment negotiation requiring a careful balance of potentially competing viewpoints, little is known about how clinicians promote their treatment recommendations to patients and what the manner of promotion tells us about the oncologist‒patient relationship. Utilizing an already-established schema of coding treatment recommendations, I draw on 61 treatment recommendations to examine treatment decision-making in oncology. This paper investigates how physicians balance asserting their authority while at the same time attending to patient agency and involvement in decision-making. Taking this one step further, this paper explores how physicians negotiate decision-making with patients given that they occupy a liminal state between obligations to policy imperatives and commitments to their professional knowledge and technical expertise. How do they do this, and what accounts for this? To answer these questions, this paper analyzes the ways in which physicians present treatment recommendations and the treatment contexts in which they are made.
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.