Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38352191›Full record

ArticlePalliative care and social practice2024

Improving shared decision-making about cancer treatment through design-based data-driven decision-support tools and redesigning care paths: an overview of the 4D PICTURE project.

Judith A C Rietjens, Ingeborg Griffioen, Jorge Sierra-Pérez, Gaby Sroczynski, Uwe Siebert, Alena Buyx, Barbara Peric, Inge Marie Svane, Jasper B P Brands, Karina D Steffensen and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

23 authors.

Judith A C RietjensDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0538-5603
Ingeborg GriffioenDepartment of Design, Organisation and Strategy, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jorge Sierra-PérezDepartment of Engineering Design and Manufacturing, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7660-3508
Gaby SroczynskiInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5193-0492
Uwe SiebertInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6425-7671
Alena BuyxInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Barbara PericInstitute of Oncology Ljubljana, Medical Faculty Ljubljana, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Inge Marie SvaneDepartment of Oncology, National Center for Cancer Immune Therapy, Herlev, Denmark.
Jasper B P BrandsPanton, Deventer, The Netherlands.
Karina D SteffensenCenter for Shared Decision Making, Vejle/Lillebaelt University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9217-3907
Carlos Romero PiquerasDepartment of Design and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain Fractal Strategy, Zaragoza, Spain.
Elham HedayatiDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1352-4332
Maria M KarstenDepartment of Gynecology with Breast Center, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7587-7550
Norbert CouespelEuropean Cancer Organisation, Brussels, Belgium.
Canan AkogluLab for Social Design, Design School Kolding, Kolding, Denmark.
Roberto Pazo-CidDepartment of Medical Oncology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Aragón, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain.
Paul RaysonSchool of Computing and Communications, University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1257-2191
Hester F LingsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maartje H N SchermerDepartment of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4283-9659
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7787-0122
Sheila A PayneInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6982-9181
Ida J KorfageDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Anne M StiggelboutMedical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patients with cancer often have to make complex decisions about treatment, with the options varying in risk profiles and effects on survival and quality of life. Moreover, inefficient care paths make it hard for patients to participate in shared decision-making. Data-driven decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, support personalized care, improve health outcomes and promote health equity. However, decision-support tools currently seldom consider quality of life or individual preferences, and their use in clinical practice remains limited, partly because they are not well integrated in patients' care paths. Aim and objectives: The central aim of the 4D PICTURE project is to redesign patients' care paths and develop and integrate evidence-based decision-support tools to improve decision-making processes in cancer care delivery. This article presents an overview of this international, interdisciplinary project. Design methods and analysis: In co-creation with patients and other stakeholders, we will develop data-driven decision-support tools for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer and melanoma. We will support treatment decisions by using large, high-quality datasets with state-of-the-art prognostic algorithms. We will further develop a conversation tool, the Metaphor Menu, using text mining combined with citizen science techniques and linguistics, incorporating large datasets of patient experiences, values and preferences. We will further develop a promising methodology, MetroMapping, to redesign care paths. We will evaluate MetroMapping and these integrated decision-support tools, and ensure their sustainability using the Ethics: Through an embedded ethics approach, we will address social and ethical issues. Discussion: Improved care paths integrating comprehensive decision-support tools have the potential to empower patients, their significant others and healthcare providers in decision-making and improve outcomes. This project will strengthen health care at the system level by improving its resilience and efficiency.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecare pathscommunicationcost-effectivenessdesignethicsprognostic modellingpublic healthshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID38352191
PMCPMC10863384

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.