Observational studyBlood advances2020
Decisional involvement and information preferences of patients with hematologic malignancies.
Observational study in Blood advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Decision Aids in Hematologic Malignancies: What Are Currently Available and What Are We Missing?The oncologist · 2023Pooled it
- Patients', clinicians' and research's priorities on important outcomes in multiple myeloma: A mixed-methods study.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
- Article
- Heterogeneity and associated factors of information needs among patients with hematological malignancies in China: a latent profile analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- More than "hematology": a qualitative study on the experience of hematologists treating people with blood cancer in Greece.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Information preferences of patients with chronic blood cancer: A qualitative investigation.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Influencing factors of lung cancer patients' participation in shared decision-making: a cross-sectional study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Older patients' experiences following initial diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia: A qualitative study.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2022Article
- Code status transitions in patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia.Blood advances · 2022Article
- Treatment decision making (TDM): a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of patients with chronic haematological cancers.BMJ open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding decisional involvement and information preferences in patients with hematologic malignancies may help to optimize physician-patient communication about treatment decisions and align the decision-making processes with patients' preferences. We described and examined factors associated with preferences of patients with hematologic malignancies for decisional involvement, information sources, and presentation of information. In a multicenter observational study, we recruited 216 patients with hematologic malignancies of any stage from September 2003 to June 2007. Patients were asked about their decisional involvement preferences (Control Preferences Scale), information sources (including most useful source of information), and preferences for their oncologists' presentation of treatment success information. We used multivariate logistic regressions to identify factors associated with decisional involvement preferences and usefulness of information sources (physicians vs nonphysicians). Patient-directed, shared, and physician-directed approaches were preferred in 34%, 38%, and 28% of patients, respectively. Physicians and computer/Internet were the most common information sources; 42% perceived physicians as the most useful source. On multivariate analysis, patients with less than a college education (vs postgraduate education) were less likely to perceive their physician as the most useful source (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21-1.00), whereas patients with acute leukemia (vs other blood cancers) were more likely to perceive their physician as the most useful source (AOR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.07-5.80). In terms of communicating treatment success rates, 70% preferred ≥1 method(s), and 88% preferred presentation in percentages. Our study suggests that decisional involvement and information preferences vary and should be assessed explicitly as part of each decision-making encounter.
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.