Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36314056›Full record

Observational studyHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

How shared is decision-making in multidisciplinary tumour conferences with patient participation? An observational study.

Barbara Schellenberger, Christian Heuser, Annika Diekmann, Nicole Ernstmann, Anna Schippers, Franziska Geiser, Ingo G H Schmidt-Wolf, Isabelle Scholl, Lena Ansmann

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. How shared is decision-making in multidisciplinary tumour conferences with patient participation? An observational study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Observational
  4. Observational
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.

Barbara SchellenbergerDepartment for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Center for Health Communication and Health Services Research (CHSR), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6117-1514
Christian HeuserDepartment for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Center for Health Communication and Health Services Research (CHSR), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Annika DiekmannDepartment for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Center for Health Communication and Health Services Research (CHSR), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Nicole ErnstmannDepartment for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Center for Health Communication and Health Services Research (CHSR), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Anna SchippersDepartment for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Center for Health Communication and Health Services Research (CHSR), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Franziska GeiserCenter for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Ingo G H Schmidt-WolfCenter for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Isabelle SchollDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Lena AnsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Division for Organizational Health Services Research, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn some breast and gynaecologic cancer centres in Germany, patients participate in their own case discussion in multidisciplinary tumour conferences (MTCs), where treatment recommendations are discussed and finalized. However, the extent to which patients in MTCs are involved in decision-making on treatment recommendations remains largely unexplored. Hence, this study investigates how recommendations are communicated to patients and the extent to which the interactions with patients in MTCs are in line with shared decision-making (SDM).

methodsIn this observational study, we audio-recorded MTCs with patient participation in three breast and gynaecologic cancer centres in Germany. We qualitatively analysed the data with regard to content and linguistic aspects.

resultsWe analysed 82 case discussions. Recommendations made during MTCs were regarding (i) treatment options, (ii) treatment initiation, (iii) next (treatment) steps and (iv) whether a treatment method should be initiated at all. The decision about recommendations depended in part on patients' preferences or further course/further outcomes. Although the purpose of MTCs is to provide recommendations, some recommendations were framed as the final decision. The majority of the decision-making conversation could be characterized as option talk (78%), during which patients were mostly proposed only one (treatment) option.

conclusionsThis study establishes limited SDM in MTCs with patient participation. By indicating choices and thereby creating awareness of choices among patients, MTCs with patient participation could be used to foster SDM implementation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two representatives of a large self-help organization for patients with breast cancer assisted the research project, particularly, in discussing the results.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsPatient ParticipationDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedFemaleGermanyHumansPatient Preferencebreast cancergynaecologic cancermultidisciplinary tumour boardmultidisciplinary tumour conferenceoncologypatient-centred communicationshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID36314056
PMCPMC9700138

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.