Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31783851›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2019

Realizing better doctor-patient dialogue about choices in palliative care and early phase clinical trial participation: towards an online value clarification tool (OnVaCT).

Liza G G van Lent, Nicole K Stoel, Julia C M van Weert, Jelle van Gurp, Maja J A de Jonge, Martijn P Lolkema, Eelke H Gort, Saskia M Pulleman, Esther Oomen-de Hoop, Jeroen Hasselaar and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Liza G G van LentDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. l.vanlent@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4979-3051
Nicole K StoelDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Pain & Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Julia C M van WeertDepartment of Communication Science, Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jelle van GurpDepartment of IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Maja J A de JongeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Martijn P LolkemaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Eelke H GortDepartment of Medical Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Saskia M PullemanDepartment of Medical Oncology and Clinical Pharmacology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Esther Oomen-de HoopDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jeroen HasselaarDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Pain & Palliative Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Carin C D van der RijtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding KWF11086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic treatment is no longer available may be offered participation in early phase clinical trials. In the decision making process, both medical-technical information and patient values and preferences are important. Since patients report decisional conflict after deciding on participation in these trials, improving the decision making process is essential. We aim to develop and evaluate an Online Value Clarification Tool (OnVaCT) to assist patients in clarifying their values around this end-of-life decision. This improved sharing of values is hypothesized to support medical oncologists in tailoring their information to individual patients' needs and, consequently, to support patients in taking decisions in line with their values and reduce decisional conflict.

methodsIn the first part, patients' values and preferences and medical oncologists' views hereupon will be explored in interviews and focus groups to build a first prototype OnVaCT using digital communication (serious gaming). Next, we will test feasibility during think aloud sessions, to deliver a ready-to-implement OnVaCT. In the second part, the OnVaCT, with accompanied training module, will be evaluated in a pre-test (12-18 months before implementation) post-test (12-18 months after implementation) study in three major Dutch cancer centres. We will include 276 patients (> 18 years) with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic therapy is no longer available, and who are referred for participation in early phase clinical trials. The first consultation will be recorded to analyse patient-physician communication regarding the discussion of patients' values and the decision making process. Three weeks afterwards, decisional conflict will be measured. DISCUSSION: This project aims to support the discussion of patient values when considering participation in early phase clinical trials. By including patients before their first appointment with the medical oncologist and recording that consultation, we are able to link decisional conflict to the decision making process, e.g. the communication during consultation. The study faces challenges such as timely including patients within the short period between referral and first consultation. Furthermore, with new treatments being developed rapidly, molecular stratification may affect the patient populations included in the pre-test and post-test periods.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry number: NTR7551 (prospective; July 17, 2018).

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient SelectionPhysician-Patient RelationsClinical Trials as TopicFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicNetherlandsPalliative CareQualitative ResearchEarly phase clinical trialeHealthEthicsPalliative carePatient-centred carePatient-physician communicationShared decision makingValue clarification tool

Identifiers

PMID31783851
PMCPMC6884817
OpenAlexW2990442276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.