Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37448166›Full record

ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

Understanding how shared decision-making approaches and patient aids influence patients with advanced cancer when deciding on palliative treatments and care: A realist review.

Michelle Edwards, Daniella Holland-Hart, Mala Mann, Kathy Seddon, Peter Buckle, Mirella Longo, Anthony Byrne, Annmarie Nelson

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Precision medicine in cutaneous melanoma-A comprehensive review.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Review
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Cancer Survivors' and Caregivers' Understanding of FDA Accelerated Approval Disclosures.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 'Leaving the Door Open': Perspectives on Decision-Making for Non-Emergency Diabetes-Related Amputation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. IS THERE A ROLE FOR BILIODIGESTIVE BYPASS SURGERY IN TREATING CHOLESTASIS IN ADVANCED PANCREATIC CANCER?Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michelle EdwardsDivision of Population Medicine, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7432-2828
Daniella Holland-HartDivision of Population Medicine, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1127-5152
Mala MannDivision of Population Medicine, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Kathy SeddonMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Wales Cancer Research Centre, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Peter BuckleMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Wales Cancer Research Centre, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Mirella LongoDivision of Population Medicine, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Anthony ByrneDivision of Population Medicine, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Annmarie NelsonDivision of Population Medicine, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Marie Curie · GB

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with advanced incurable cancer face difficult decisions about palliative treatment options towards their end of life. However, they are often not provided with the appropriate information and support that is needed to make informed decisions. This review aimed to identify contexts and mechanisms associated with communication tools, patient decision-aids and shared decision-making (SDM) approaches that influence patient outcomes.

methodsWe used a realist review method to search for published studies of patients (adults > 18) with advanced cancer who were expected to make a decision about palliative treatment and/or supportive care in consultation with healthcare practitioners. We appraised and synthesised literature describing the contexts of (when and how) decision aids and SDM approaches are used, and how these contexts interact with mechanisms (resources and reasoning) which impact patient outcomes. Stakeholders including academics, palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs) and people with lived experience of supporting people with advanced incurable cancer contributed to identifying explanatory accounts. These accounts were documented, analysed and consolidated to contribute to the development of a programme theory.

resultsFrom the 33 included papers, we consolidated findings into 20 explanatory accounts to develop a programme theory that explains key contexts and mechanisms that influence patient and SDM. Contexts include underlying patients' and HCPs' attitudes and approaches. These need to be understood in relation to key mechanisms, including presenting information in multiple formats and providing adequate time and opportunities to prepare for and revisit decisions. Contexts influenced mechanisms which then influence the levels of patient decisional satisfaction, conflict and regret.

conclusionsOur programme theory highlights mechanisms that are important in supporting shared treatment decisions for advanced noncurative cancer. The findings are informative for developing and evaluating interventions to improve understanding and involvement in SDM for patients with advanced incurable cancer. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We included patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives in four stakeholder meetings. PPI helped to define the scope of the review, identify their unique experiences and perspectives, synthesise their perspectives with our review findings, make decisions about which theories we included in our programme theory and develop recommendations for policy and practice and future research.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPalliative CareAdultDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedDecision Support TechniquesHumansPatient Participationadvanced cancerdecision supportpalliative carepalliative treatment

Identifiers

PMID37448166
PMCPMC10632651
OpenAlexW4384277274

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.