Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31812074›Full record

ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2020

What do patients and health care professionals view as important attributes in radiotherapy decisions? Input for a breast cancer patient decision aid.

D B Raphael, J A Ter Stege, N S Russell, L J Boersma, T van der Weijden

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

D B RaphaelDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Radiotherapy, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: d.raphael@nki.nl.
J A Ter StegeDepartment of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.t.stege@nki.nl.
N S RussellDepartment of Radiotherapy, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: n.russell@nki.nl.
L J BoersmaDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: liesbeth.boersma@maastro.nl.
T van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: trudy.vanderweijden@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Maastricht University · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimThere is increased attention for shared decision making (SDM) when deciding on radiotherapy for selected patients with Stage 0-2 breast cancer. This study aimed to explore patients' and health care professionals' experiences, decisional attributes and needs as input for the development of a patient decision aid to facilitate SDM.

methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were held with fifteen breast cancer patients, being confronted with a radiotherapy decision one month to eight years earlier. Another fifteen interviews were held with professionals specialized in breast cancer care. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and independently coded by two researchers, who agreed upon relevant issues.

resultsMost patients made their decision by weighing the advantages of radiotherapy, i.e. comparing the decrease in recurrence risk with and without radiotherapy, and disadvantages, i.e. possible side effects. Patients and professionals agreed that recurrence risks should be communicated, but not on how to deal with uncertainty. There was wide variation in which, and how, side effects were explained by professionals. The most common side effects mentioned by both patients and professionals were skin toxicity, fatigue and breast deformity.

conclusionPatients and professionals appeared to agree on what type of attributes should be communicated during SDM on radiotherapy, but how this should be done is up for discussion. To ensure the patient's voice these attributes and needs need to be incorporated in the risk communication and value elicitation part of the patient decision aid. The format in which the attributes are communicated should be critically evaluated.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical Decision RulesDecision Making, SharedPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingQualitative ResearchBreast cancerPatient decision aidPerspectivesQualitativeRadiotherapyShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID31812074
PMCPMC7375659
OpenAlexW2991031472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.