Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34146446›Full record

SynthesisPsycho-oncology2021

Patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment: A systematic review.

Eveline A Noteboom, Anne M May, Elsken van der Wall, Niek J de Wit, Charles W Helsper

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psycho-oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Prognostic factors and outcomes of surgical intervention for patients with spinal metastases secondary to lung cancer: an update systematic review and meta analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Effects of a shared decision-making implementation programme on patient-centred communication in oncology-Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Eveline A NoteboomDepartment: Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5044-5591
Anne M MayDepartment: Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Elsken van der WallDepartment: Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Niek J de WitDepartment: Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Charles W HelsperDepartment: Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatient involvement in decision making is conditional for personalised treatment decisions. We aim to provide an up-to-date overview of patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment.

methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL for articles published between January 2009 and January 2020. Search terms were 'decision making', 'patient participation', 'oncology', 'perception' and 'treatment'. Inclusion criteria were: written in English, peer-reviewed, reporting patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement, including adult cancer patients and concerning decision making for cancer treatment. The percentages of patients preferring and perceiving an active, shared or passive decision role and the (dis)concordance are presented. Quality assessment was performed with a modified version of the New-Castle Ottawa Scale.

results31 studies were included. The median percentage of patients preferring an active, shared or passive role in decision making was respectively 25%, 46%, and 27%. The median percentage of patients perceiving an active, shared or passive role was respectively 27%, 39%, and 34%. The median concordance in preferred and perceived role of all studies was 70%. Disconcordance was highest for a shared role; 42%.

conclusionsPatients' preferences for involvement in cancer treatment decision vary widely. A significant number of patients perceived a decisional role other than preferred. Improvements in patient involvement have been observed in the last decade. However, there is still room for improvement and physicians should explore patients' preferences for involvement in decision making in order to truly deliver personalised cancer care.

Indexed as

Decision MakingNeoplasmsAdultHumansPatient ParticipationPatient PreferencePhysician-Patient Relationsdecision makingmedical oncologyneoplasmspatient participationpatient preferencepsycho-oncology

Identifiers

PMID34146446
PMCPMC8518833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.