Observational studyJournal of gynecologic oncology2025
Shared decision-making in patients with gynecological cancer and healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional observational study in Japan.
Observational study in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making for patients with cancer and health care providers based on the COM-B model: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Reproductive concerns and quality of life among Chinese women undergoing fertility-sparing surgery for gynecologic malignancies: a mixed-methods study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Patient-centered valuation of minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer: a discrete choice experiment.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Identifying the heterogeneity of self-advocacy in patients with gynecological cancer: a latent class profile analysis.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- From consultation to choice: gynecologic cancer patients' perspectives on shared decision making in clinical practice - findings from a cross-sectional observational qualitative interview study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Observational
- Long-term progression-free survivors ("super responders") to olaparib maintenance in recurrent ovarian cancer: a multicenter real-world study (KCOG-G2101s).International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Observational
- Article
- Article
- Exploring Patient Involvement in Treatment Decision-Making for Diabetic Retinopathy: A COM-B Model-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.Patient preference and adherence · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis cross-sectional study aimed to understand the actual situation of shared decision-making (SDM) and identify the challenges of implementing SDM among Japanese gynecologic cancer patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).
methodsAdult Japanese women undergoing chemotherapy for endometrial or ovarian/fallopian tube cancer and HCPs who prescribed/administered treatment were enrolled. Data were collected via a web-based questionnaire. Primary endpoints were the actual and desired status of SDM for patients by preferred role (active, collaborative, passive), and important aspects in drug selection for patients and HCPs. SDM treatment preferences were determined using the Control Preferences Scale.
resultsRespondents comprised 154 patients (77 for endometrial and 77 for ovarian/fallopian tube cancer), 153 physicians, 166 nurses, and 154 pharmacists. Among patients, 53.9% desired an active role in decision-making, and 55.8% participated; 25.3% desired a collaborative role, and 14.3% participated; and 20.8% desired a passive role, and 29.9% participated. Most patients with a collaborative role in decision-making (86.4%) were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with their communication with physicians, compared with 60.4% and 73.9% of respondents with active and passive roles in decision-making, respectively. In daily practice, 23.5%, 47.6%, and 19.5% of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, respectively, confirmed "awareness" of SDM. Regarding treatment expectations, patients ranked "complete elimination of cancer," and HCPs ranked "live longer" as the most important.
conclusionMost patients desire involvement in their treatment decisions. Additionally, treatment expectations differ between patients and HCPs. Increasing SDM awareness, implementing it systematically, and addressing patients' needs for collaborative roles in decision-making is essential.
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.