Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32508006›Full record

ArticleThe patient2020

Patient and Family Caregiver Considerations When Selecting Early Breast Cancer Treatment: Implications for Clinical Pathway Development.

Dena Schulman-Green, Emily Cherlin, Renee Capasso, Sarah S Mougalian, Shiyi Wang, Cary P Gross, Preeti S Bajaj, Katherine Eakle, Sharmi Patel, Karin Douglas and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Shared decision-making and the lessons learned about decision regret in cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Dena Schulman-GreenYale School of Nursing, PO Box 27399, West Haven, CT, 06516, USA. dena.schulman-green@yale.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2259-3284
Emily CherlinYale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Renee CapassoSmilow Cancer Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA.
Sarah S MougalianSmilow Cancer Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA.
Shiyi WangYale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Cary P GrossYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Preeti S BajajGenentech, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Katherine EakleGenentech, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Sharmi PatelGenentech, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
Karin Douglas, Stratford, CT, USA.
Kerin AdelsonSmilow Cancer Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile clinical pathways have been widely adopted to decrease variation in cancer treatment patterns, they do not always incorporate patient and family caregiver perspectives. We identified shared patient and family caregiver considerations influencing treatment preferences/decision making to inform development of a shared decision pathway.

methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with women who completed initial definitive treatment for stage I-III breast cancer and their family caregivers. As part of a broader interview, we asked participants what they considered when choosing a treatment option for themselves/their loved one. We coded transcribed interviews, analyzed patient and family caregiver datasets separately, and compared findings. Findings Patients' (n = 22) mean age was 55.7 years, whereas family caregivers' (n = 20) mean age was 59.5 years, with most (65%) being patients' spouses/partners. Considerations reported by both groups included cancer status, treatment issues, physical/psychosocial/family consequences, and provider/health care system issues. Data revealed three key tensions that arise during treatment decision making: (1) having enough information to set expectations but not so much as to be overwhelming; (2) balancing the highest likelihood of cure with potential physical/emotional/social/financial consequences of the chosen treatment; and (3) wanting to make data-driven decisions while having a personalized treatment plan. DISCUSSION: Patients and family caregivers identified several considerations of shared relevance reflecting different perspectives. Efforts to balance considerations can produce tensions that may contribute to decision regret if unaddressed.

conclusionClinical pathways can increase exposure to decision regret if treatment options are selected without consideration of patients' priorities. A shared decision pathway that incorporates patient-centeredness could facilitate satisfactory decision making.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCaregiversCritical PathwaysDecision MakingFamilyFemaleHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.