Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33245150›Full record

Trial reportPsycho-oncology2021

Effects of a time out consultation with the general practitioner on cancer treatment decision-making: a randomised controlled trial: Time out with the general practitioner and cancer treatment decision.

Ietje A A Perfors, Eveline A Noteboom, Niek J de Wit, Elsken van der Wall, Ella A Visserman, Thijs van Dalen, Marc A M T Verhagen, Arjen J Witkamp, Ron Koelemij, Annebeth E Flinterman and 8 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Psycho-oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ietje A A PerforsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Internal Medicine and Oncology, Surgery, Gynaecologic Oncology, Gastroenterology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eveline A NoteboomJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Internal Medicine and Oncology, Surgery, Gynaecologic Oncology, Gastroenterology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5044-5591
Niek J de WitJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Internal Medicine and Oncology, Surgery, Gynaecologic Oncology, Gastroenterology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Elsken van der WallJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Internal Medicine and Oncology, Surgery, Gynaecologic Oncology, Gastroenterology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ella A VissermanAdvocate Quality of Care, Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organizations, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Thijs van DalenSurgery, Gastroenterology, Dermatology, Pulmonology, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marc A M T VerhagenSurgery, Gastroenterology, Dermatology, Pulmonology, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Arjen J WitkampJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Internal Medicine and Oncology, Surgery, Gynaecologic Oncology, Gastroenterology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ron KoelemijSurgery, Dermatology, Lung Diseases and Treatment, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Annebeth E FlintermanSurgery, Gastroenterology, Dermatology, Pulmonology, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eleonora B L van DorstJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Internal Medicine and Oncology, Surgery, Gynaecologic Oncology, Gastroenterology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kim A B M Pruissen-PeetersSurgery, Dermatology, Lung Diseases and Treatment, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Leon M G MoonsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Internal Medicine and Oncology, Surgery, Gynaecologic Oncology, Gastroenterology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Franz M N H SchramelSurgery, Dermatology, Lung Diseases and Treatment, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Marcel T M van RensSurgery, Gastroenterology, Dermatology, Pulmonology, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Miranda F ErnstSurgery, Alexander Monro Clinics, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Anne M MayJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Internal Medicine and Oncology, Surgery, Gynaecologic Oncology, Gastroenterology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Charles W HelsperJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Internal Medicine and Oncology, Surgery, Gynaecologic Oncology, Gastroenterology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLDiakonessenhuis hospital · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLAlexander Monro Ziekenhuis · NLDutch Cancer Society · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveImproving shared decision-making (SDM) enables more tailored cancer treatment decisions. We evaluated a Time Out consultation (TOC) with the general practitioner (GP), between cancer diagnosis and treatment decision, which aims at supporting SDM and improving continuity of primary care. This study aims to evaluate the effects of a TOC on perceived SDM, information provision and self-efficacy.

methodsThis randomised controlled trial included newly diagnosed patients with curable cancer (breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic and melanoma) from four Dutch hospitals. Primary outcome is perceived SDM and secondary outcomes are information provision and self-efficacy.

resultsOne hundred fifty-four patients (control n = 77, intervention n = 77) - female: 75%, mean age: 61 (SD ± 11.9). In the intervention group, 80.5% (n = 62) had a TOC, of which 82.3% (n = 51) took place after treatment decision. Perceived SDM was lower in the intervention group (-8.9 [95% CI: 0.6-17.1]). Among those with a TOC before treatment decision (n = 11), perceived SDM was comparable to the control group (66.5 ± 27.2 vs. 67.9 ± 26.1).

conclusionEven though patients are motivated to have a TOC, implementing a TOC between diagnosis and treatment decision is challenging. Effects of a timely TOC could not be established. Non-timely TOC decreased perceived SDM. Planning of the TOC should be optimised, and future research should establish if adequately timed TOC results in improved SDM in cancer patients.

Indexed as

General PractitionersNeoplasmsDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationReferral and Consultationcancerdecision-makinggeneral practitionersneoplasmsphysiciansprimary health carepsycho-oncology

Identifiers

PMID33245150
PMCPMC8048675
OpenAlexW3106684403

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.