ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2019
The "Preparation for Shared Decision-Making" Tool for Women With Advanced Breast Cancer: Qualitative Validation Study.
Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Iterative Development of an Interactive Website to Support Shared Decision-Making in Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Article
- The decision aid is the easy part: workflow challenges of shared decision making in cancer care.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Article
- The 4-Circles Tool 2.0-A Tool to Prepare Older Patients for Shared Decision Making: A Developmental and Feasibility Study.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe range of decisions and considerations that women with advanced breast cancer (ABC) face can be overwhelming and difficult to manage. Research shows that most patients prefer a shared decision-making (SDM) approach as it provides them with the opportunity to be actively involved in their treatment decisions. The current engagement of these patients in their clinical decisions is suboptimal. Moreover, implementing SDM into routine clinical care can be challenging as patients may not always feel adequately prepared or may not expect to be involved in the decision-making process.
objectiveAvalere Health developed the Preparation for Shared Decision-Making (PFSDM) tool to help patients with ABC feel prepared to communicate with their clinicians and engage in decision making aligned with their preferences. The goal of this study was to validate the tool for its acceptability and usability among this patient population.
methodsWe interviewed a diverse group of women with ABC (N=30). Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and double coded by using NVivo. We assessed 8 themes to understand the acceptability and usability of the tool.
resultsInterviewees expressed that the tool was acceptable for preparing patients for decision making and would be useful for helping patients know what to expect in their care journey. Interviewees also provided useful comments to improve the tool.
conclusionsThis validation study confirms the acceptability and usability of the PFSDM tool for women with ABC. Future research should assess the feasibility of the tool's implementation in the clinical workflow and its impact on patient outcomes.
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.