ArticleThe oncologist2019
"I need to know what makes somebody tick …": Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology.
Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of Decision Aids on Decision Knowledge, Conflict, and Satisfaction Among Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of nursing management · 2026Pooled it
- Analysis of Influencing Factors and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making Among Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Qualitative Studies.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Pooled it
- Exploring Pathways to Optimise Care in malignant bowel obstruction (EPOC): A realist review of shared decision-making with people with advanced cancer and severe symptoms.Palliative medicine · 2026Review
- Patients', clinicians' and research's priorities on important outcomes in multiple myeloma: A mixed-methods study.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
- Shared decision-making in Cervical Cancer Care at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2026Article
- 'I had no choice!' Challenges in the informed consent and decision-making process for allogeneic stem cell transplantation: a qualitative method triangulation.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Article
- Navigating shared decision-making in lung cancer screening: Insights into barriers, training, and referral propensity among clinicians.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
- Navigating the patient-provider relationship during severe illness with lessons from a qualitative perspective of calciphylaxis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Examining How Technology Supports Shared Decision-Making in Oncology Consultations: Qualitative Thematic Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Can Large Language Models Aid Caregivers of Pediatric Cancer Patients in Information Seeking? A Cross-Sectional Investigation.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Using value-focused thinking to elicit oncologic inpatients' life and treatment objectives: a qualitative interview study.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- Muslim Jurisprudence on Withdrawing Treatment from Incurable Patients: A Directed Content Analysis of the Papers of the Islamic Fiqh Council of the Muslim World League.Journal of religion and health · 2024Article
- What Affects Treatment Underuse in Multiple Myeloma in the United States: A Qualitative Study.Cancers · 2023Article
- Health locus of control in cancer patient and oncologist decision-making: An exploratory qualitative study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Discussing Prognosis with Empathy to Cancer Patients.Current oncology reports · 2021Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as an ethical framework for decision-making in cancer care. According to SDM, patients make decisions in light of their values and based on the available evidence. However, SDM is difficult to implement in cancer care. A lack of applicability in practice is often reported. This empirical-ethical study explores factors potentially relevant to current difficulties in translating the concept of SDM into clinical practice.
methodsThis study was conducted with nonparticipant observation of the decision-making process in patients with gastrointestinal cancers for whom the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was uncertain according to clinical guidelines. Triangulation of qualitative data analysis was conducted by means of semistructured interviews subsequent to the observation. Observation notes and interview transcripts were analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory.
resultsDeviating from the concept of SDM, oncologists initiated a process of eliciting values and medical information prior to conveying information. The purpose of this approach was to select and individualize information relevant to the treatment decision. In doing so, the oncologists observed used two strategies: "biographical communication" and a "metacommunicative approach." Both strategies could be shown to be effective or to fail depending on patients' characteristics such as their view of the physicians' role and the relevance of value-related information for medical decision-making.
conclusionIn contrast to the conceptual account of SDM, oncologists are in need of patient-related information prior to conveying information. Both strategies observed to elicit such information are in principle justifiable but need to be adapted in accordance with patient preferences and decision-making styles. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study showed that knowledge of patients' values and preferences is very important to properly adapt the giving of medical information and to further the process of shared decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM) trainings should consider different strategies of talking about values. The right strategy depends largely on the patient's preferences in communication. To be aware of the role of values in SDM and to be able to switch communicative strategies might prove to be of particular value. A more systematic evaluation of the patient's decision-making preferences as part of routine procedures in hospitals might help to reduce value-related barriers in communication.
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.