Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33623298›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of palliative care

Shared Decision-Making and Medicolegal Aspects: Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care in India.

Dinesh C Doval, Prabhash Kumar, Vineet Talwar, Ashok K Vaid, Chirag Desai, Vikas Ostwal, Palanki S Dattatreya, Vijay Agarwal, Vaibhav Saxena

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of palliative care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Patient preferences and choices as a reflection of trust-A cluster analysis comparing postsurgical perceptions in a private and a public hospital.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Dinesh C DovalDepartment of Medical Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Rohini, New Delhi, India.
Prabhash KumarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Vineet TalwarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Rohini, New Delhi, India.
Ashok K VaidDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Medanta-The Medicity, Gurgaon, Haryana, India.
Chirag DesaiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hemato Oncology Clinic, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Vikas OstwalDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Palanki S DattatreyaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Omega Hospitals, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Vijay AgarwalDepartment of Medical Oncology, HCG, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Vaibhav SaxenaDepartment of Oncology, Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd., India, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is often difficult for people with cancer to make decisions for their care. The aim of this review is to understand the importance of shared decisionmaking (SDM) in Indian clinical scenario and identify the gaps when compared to practices in the Western world. A systematic search (2000-2019) was executed in Medline and Google Scholar using predefined keywords. Of the approximate 400 articles retrieved, 43 articles (Indian: 5; Western: 38) were selected for literature review. Literature review revealed the paucity of information on SDM in India compared to the Western world data. This may contribute to patientreported physical or psychological harms, life disruptions, or unnecessary financial costs. Western world data demonstrate the involvement and sharing of information by both patient and physician, collective efforts of the two to build consensus for preferred treatment. In India, involvement of patients in the planning for treatment is largely limited to tertiary care centers, academic institutes, or only when the cost of therapy is high. In addition, cultural beliefs and prejudices impact the extent of participation and engagement of a patient in disease management. Communication failures have been found to strongly correlate with the medicolegal malpractice litigations. Research is needed to explore ways to how to incorporate SDM into routine oncology practice. India has a high unmet need towards SDM in diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Physicians need to involve patients or their immediate family members in decision making, to make it a patient-centric approach as well. SDM enforces to avoid uninformed decisionmaking or a lack of trust in the treating physician's knowledge and skills. Physician and patient education, development of tools and guiding policies, widespread implementation, and periodic assessments may advance the practice of SDM.

Indexed as

Cancer carepatient-centered carepatient empowermentpatient engagementshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID33623298
PMCPMC7888410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.