Trial reportDeutsches Arzteblatt international2024
The Heidelberg Decision Aid for Patients With Lung Cancer (HELP)—Findings of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvanced lung cancer typifies the challenges of shared decision-making in oncology. With a limited prognosis for survival, the increasingly numerous and complex treatment options must continually be weighed against issues of fragility, quality of life, and the end of life.
methodsThis randomized, controlled trial, carried out on 138 patients, concerned the use of a decision aid combined with decision coaching, versus standard care. The primary endpoint was clarity of the patient's personal attitude, as assessed on the Decisional Conflict Scale. The secondary endpoints were self-efficacy, decisional conflict, perceived preparedness and participation in decision-making, and anxiety/depression. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and intergroup comparisons. The trial was entered into the German registry of clinical trials (DRKS00028023).
resultsNo statistically significant difference with regard to the primary endpoint (clarity of the patient's personal attitude concerning the decision) was found in a comparison between the intervention group and the control group (IG: median/IQR: 41.67/47.92; CG: median/IQR: 33.33/43.75; p = 0.35). The descriptive statistics revealed a high level of decisional conflict in the overall group of study participants: 57.6% had a very high level of decisional conflict, composed in particular of the dimensions of feeling inadequately informed (64.4%) and of uncertainty (58.9%). Most participants judged the intervention to be helpful in preparing them to make a decision.
conclusionEven though the intervention was perceived as helpful preparation for decision-making, it did not bring about any improvement in the high level of decisional conflict. With the continual development of new treatments and the associated increase in prognostic uncertainty, there is an important role for individualized patient information and the training of physicians in how to deal with uncertainty.
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.