Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34589620›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2021

A patient decision aid for breast cancer patients deciding on their radiation treatment, no change in decisional conflict but better informed choices.

D B Raphael, N S Russell, B Winkens, J M Immink, P G Westhoff, M C Stenfert Kroese, M R Stam, N Bijker, C M J van Gestel, T van der Weijden and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

D B RaphaelDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
N S RussellDepartment of Radiotherapy, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
B WinkensDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute,Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
J M ImminkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, the Netherlands.
P G WesthoffDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
M C Stenfert KroeseRadiotherapy Group, Deventer, the Netherlands.
M R StamRadiotherapy Group, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
N BijkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, the Netherlands.
C M J van GestelZuidwest Radiotherapeutisch Instituut (ZRTI), the Netherlands.
T van der WeijdenDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
L J BoersmaDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeIn selected breast cancer patients, radiation treatment (RT) lowers the recurrence risk, with minor or no improvement of survival. In these patients, the choice to undergo RT is considered a preference-sensitive decision. To facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) for this choice, a patient decision aid was made. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the PtDA on decisional conflict. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe performed a multi-center pre- and post-intervention study (BRASA-trial). The first 214 patients made a choice without support of the PtDA; the subsequent 189 patients received a link to the PtDA. The primary endpoint was decisional conflict; secondary endpoints were perceived SDM and knowledge on treatment options. Patients filled out questionnaires immediately after, and three months after their decision. Data were analyzed with multi-level regression analysis.

resultsAfter correcting for the difference in age and educational level, the mean (±SD) decisional conflict for the intervention group (27.3 ± 11.4) was similar to the control group (26.8 ± 11.4; difference = 0.86, 95 %CI 1.67,3.36) three months after their decision. This also applied to perceived SDM. Patients exposed to the PtDA pursued additional treatment less often (45% vs 56%, odds ratio 0.59, 95 %CI 0.37,0.95) and scored significantly higher on the knowledge test (7.4 ± 2.5 vs 6.1 ± 2.7, corrected difference = 1.0, 95 %CI 0.50,1.49). There was no significant increase in consultation time.

conclusionsHanding out the PtDA was not associated with improved scores in decisional conflict or perceived SDM, but it was associated with a choice for less additional treatment and better knowledge about the treatment options.

Identifiers

PMID34589620
PMCPMC8461042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.