Observational studyScientific reports2023
Patients' preferences in therapeutic decision-making in digestive oncology: a single centre cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Pathways to Optimise Care in malignant bowel obstruction (EPOC): A realist review of shared decision-making with people with advanced cancer and severe symptoms.Palliative medicine · 2026Review
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Colorectal Carcinoma with High-risk Criteria: Long-term Follow-up from the German Multicenter Registry.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Shared decision-making in cancer care in Bangladesh: evidence from a resource-constrained setting.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Shared decision-making in patients with gynecological cancer and healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional observational study in Japan.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Observational
- Evaluating the Benefits and Challenges of Using Patient Preferences as a Tool for Clinical Decision Making in Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meetings within the National Health Service: A Qualitative Study.Oncology research and treatment · 2025Article
- A Canadian algorithm for upper gastrointestinal cancer management.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Considering the preferences in Shared Decision Making (SDM) of patients with Digestive Cancer (DC) is crucial to ensure the quality of care. To date, there is limited information on preferences in SDM of patients with DC. The objectives of this study were to describe digestive cancer patients' preference for involvement in therapeutic decision-making and to identify variables associated with these preferences. An observational prospective study in a French university cancer center has been conducted. Patients completed two questionnaires to qualify and quantify their preference for involvement in therapeutic decision-making: the Control Preference Scale (CPS) and the Autonomy Preference Index (API), which is composed of the Decision Making (DM) score and the Information Seeking (IS) score. Associations between these scores and socio-demographic data, disease-related data, coping strategies (Brief-COPE), physical (QLQ-C30) and psychological (HADS) quality of life were tested. One-hundred fifteen patients returned the questionnaires. The majority of patients reported a passive (49.1%) or a collaborative (43.0%) CPS status. The mean DM score was 39.4 Variables associated with decision-making preferences were occupational status and time since diagnosis. The identification of variables associated with patients' preferences for involvement in decision-making can help make clinicians aware of patients' needs and wishes. However, it can only be determined by interviewing the patient individually.
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.