ArticleOncology and therapy2022
Patient, Family Member and Physician Perspectives and Experiences with AML Treatment Decision-Making.
Article in Oncology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Capturing the Lived Experiences of Informal Care in Acute Leukaemia: A Multinational Qualitative Study.The patient · 2026Article
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Harbin, China: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients, Caregivers, and Hematologists.The patient · 2026Article
- Caring for Older Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Best Practices for Aligning Patient Fitness and Preference with Available Therapies.Drugs & aging · 2026Review
- Multiple Myeloma Experiences and Preferences: A Mixed Methods Study of Patients and Care Partners in the United States.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- A Qualitative Study of the Initial Diagnosis and Treatment Experience of Black Patients with Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Palliative medicine reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTreatment decisions in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are challenging, particularly for those who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy (IC), and the trade-offs patients, their families and physicians consider when choosing a treatment option are not well understood. This qualitative research explored the value of extending survival and the treatment decision-making process from a multi-stakeholder perspective.
methodsOverall, 28 patients with AML (≥ 65 years old, unsuitable for IC), 25 of their relatives and 10 independent physicians from the US, UK and Canada took part in one-on-one, 60-minute qualitative interviews.
resultsAcross all stakeholders, improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL), extended survival and relief of AML symptoms were recognized as most important in AML treatment decision-making. However, extending survival in 'good health' was more important than extending survival alone, particularly because of the extra time it gives patients and their relatives together, and allows patients to achieve important goals. Patients' limited understanding of available treatment options, paired with incorrect perceptions of treatment side effects, impacted their involvement in the treatment decision-making process. Patients and physicians perceived physicians to have the most influence in the decision-making process despite their priorities not always aligning.
conclusionThese findings illustrate the importance of having structured discussions which explicitly assess patients' goals and their understanding and expectations of treatments and also the need for patient friendly resources about the lived experience of AML and available treatment options. These measures will help to ensure that patients are fully involved in the shared decision-making process.
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.