Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213736›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2022

Show me the roads and give me a road map: Development of a patient conversation tool to improve lung cancer treatment decision-making.

Sara E Golden, Natalie Disher, Nathan F Dieckmann, Karen B Eden, Daniel Matlock, Kelly C Vranas, Christopher G Slatore, Donald R Sullivan

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04574518 (Teachable Moment to Opt-out of Tobacco), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

NCT04574518 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Teachable Moment to Opt-out of Tobacco (TeaM OUT): A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Intervention

TypeinterventionalSponsorVA Office of Research and DevelopmentRan2022 to 2026Enrolled223ConditionsSolitary Pulmonary Nodule, Multiple Pulmonary Nodules, Tobacco UseArmsTeaM OUT Intervention, Enhanced Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Predictors of Treatment Preparedness Among Lung Cancer Patients: The Role of Patient-Provider Communication.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors.

Sara E GoldenCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), Portland, OR, USA.
Natalie DisherCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), Portland, OR, USA.
Nathan F DieckmannSchool of Nursing, Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), Portland, OR, USA.
Karen B EdenDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinic Epidemiology, OHSU, Portland, OR, USA.
Daniel MatlockDivision of Geriatric Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Kelly C VranasCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), Portland, OR, USA.
Christopher G SlatoreCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), Portland, OR, USA.
Donald R SullivanCenter to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS), Portland, OR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Evidence-based decision support resources do not exist for persons with lung cancer. We sought to develop and refine a treatment decision support, or conversation tool, to improve shared decision-making (SDM). Methods: We conducted a multi-site study among patients with stage I-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed or had ongoing lung cancer treatment using semi-structured, cognitive qualitative interviews to assess participant understanding of content. We used an integrated approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC participated. Participants with prior cancer experiences or those with family members with prior cancer experiences reported better preparedness for cancer treatment decision-making. All participants agreed the conversation tool would be helpful to clarify their thinking about values, comparisons, and goals of treatment, and to help patients communicate more effectively with their clinicians. Conclusion: Participants reported that the tool may empower them with confidence and agency to actively participate in cancer treatment SDM. The conversation tool was acceptable, comprehensible, and usable. Next steps will test effectiveness on patient-centered and decisional outcomes. Innovation: A personalized conversation tool using consequence tables and core SDM components is novel in that it can encourage a tailored, conversational dynamic and includes patient-centered values along with traditional decisional outcomes.

Indexed as

Decision support techniquesLung neoplasmQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID37213736
PMCPMC10194168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.