Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38974934›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2024

Improving sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A qualitative study.

Sietske C M W van Nassau, Helene R Voogdt-Pruis, Vincent M W de Jong, Hans-Martin Otten, Liselot B Valkenburg-van Iersel, Bas J Swarte, Tineke E Buffart, Hans J Pruijt, Leonie J Mekenkamp, Miriam Koopman and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Sietske C M W van NassauDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Helene R Voogdt-PruisDepartment of Global Public Health and Bioethics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Vincent M W de JongDutch patient federation for colorectal cancer (Stichting Darmkanker), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Hans-Martin OttenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Meander Medical Center Amersfoort, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.
Liselot B Valkenburg-van IerselDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Bas J SwarteDepartment of Medical Oncology, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Tineke E BuffartDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location VUMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Hans J PruijtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Leonie J MekenkampDepartment of Medical Oncology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Miriam KoopmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Anne M MayDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To improve sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, we evaluated real-world experiences and identified ways to optimize decision aid content and future implementation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with patients and medical oncologists addressed two main subjects: user experience and decision aid content. Content analysis was applied. Fifteen experts discussed the results and devised improvements based on experience and literature review. Results: Thirteen users were interviewed. They confirmed the relevance of the decision aid for shared decision making. Areas for improvement of content concerned; 1) outdated and missing information, 2) an imbalance in presentation of treatment benefits and harms, and 3) medical oncologists' expressed preference for a more center-specific or patient individualized decision aid, presenting a selection of the guideline recommended treatment options. Key points for improvement of implementation were better alignment within the care pathway, and clear instruction to users. Conclusion: We identified relevant opportunities for improvement of an existing decision aid and developed an updated version and accompanying implementation strategy accordingly. Innovation: This paper outlines an approach for continued decision aid and implementation strategy development which will add to sustainability. Implementation success of the improved decision aid is currently being studied in a multi-center mixed-methods implementation study.

Indexed as

Continued developmentDecision aidImplementationMetastatic colorectal cancerQualitative researchQuality improvementShared decision makingSustainability

Identifiers

PMID38974934
PMCPMC11225887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.