ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020
Communicating tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects: Only words or also numbers?
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes That Matter in Gastrointestinal Cancer Care: A Focus Group Study of Patient-Centred Outcomes Identified by Patients and Care Partners.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Support and concerns: Dutch health care professionals' views on the use of a childhood obesity prediction toolbox.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- "Let's talk about risk": co-designing a pathway to assess, communicate and act on individual risk of long-term toxicities after breast cancer.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Exploring the MAPPING application to facilitate risk communication and shared decision-making between physicians and patients with gynaecological cancer.BMJ open quality · 2024Observational
- The influence of written medication reminder on patient experience among older adult patients: a repeat cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Article
- Taking shared decision making for prostate cancer to the next level: Requirements for a Dutch treatment decision aid with personalized risks on side effects.Internet interventions · 2023Article
- Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors' needs for personalized and generic statistical information.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Cocreation with Dutch patients of decision-relevant information to support shared decision-making about adjuvant treatment in breast cancer care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Exploring Cancer Survivor Needs and Preferences for Communicating Personalized Cancer Statistics From Registry Data: Qualitative Multimethod Study.JMIR cancer · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increased availability of patient reported outcome data makes it feasible to provide patients tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects. However, it is unclear how such information influences patients' risk interpretations compared to generic population-based risks, and which message format should be used to communicate such individualized statistics.
methodsA web-based experiment was conducted in which participants (n = 141) read a hypothetical treatment decision-making scenario about four side effect risks of adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. Participants were cancer patients or survivors who were recruited from an online Dutch cancer patient panel. All participants received two tailored risks (of which the reference class was based on their age, gender and tumor stage) and two generic risks conveying the likelihood of experiencing the side effects. The risks were presented either in words-only ('common' and 'very common'), or in a combination of words and corresponding numerical estimates ('common, 10 out of 100' and 'very common, 40 out of 100'). Participants' estimation of the probability, accuracy of their estimation, and perceived likelihood of occurrence were primary outcomes. Perceived personal relevance and perceived uncertainty were secondary outcomes.
resultsTailored risks were estimated as higher and less accurate than generic risks, but only when they were presented in words; Such differences were not found in the verbal and numerical combined condition. Although tailoring risks did not impact participants' perceived likelihood of occurrence, tailored risks were perceived as more personally relevant than generic risks in both message formats. Finally, tailored risks were perceived as less uncertain than generic risks, but only in the verbal-only condition.
conclusionsConsidering current interest in the use of personalized decision aids for improving shared decision-making in oncology, it is important that clinicians consider how tailored risks of treatment side effects should be communicated to patients. We recommend both clinicians who communicate probability information during consultations, and decision aid developers, that verbal descriptors of tailored risks should be supported by numerical estimates of risks levels, to avoid overestimation of risks.
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.