ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
Bridging the care gap: patients' needs and experiences regarding shared decision-making in radiotherapy.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Factors influencing patient involvement in treatment decision-making for diabetic retinopathy: a mixed methods study protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- First-line treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma: balancing efficacy, safety, and individual values and preferences through shared decision making.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Shared decision-making in cancer care in Bangladesh: evidence from a resource-constrained setting.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Shared decision-making (SDM), a collaborative process in which patients and physicians jointly determine further treatment, has been associated with numerous positive effects. However, its implementation into routine clinical practice faces challenges. In radiotherapy (RT) it may have additional challenges, since patients are referred from another oncologist, often "to undergo RT". The aim of this study is to understand patients' preferences and experiences regarding SDM at an academic RT clinic, and to identify targets for SDM implementation in RT. Materials and methods: We adapted an earlier survey sent out by the Dutch Cancer Patient Organizations Federation to fit the RT setting. The survey was distributed via letters and social media to (former) patients who had their intake between 2020 and 2022. Results: 1799 participants completed the survey, of whom 88,3% mentioned to always or often prefer SDM. 23,1% of participants reported experiencing a choice, and 50% of these participants experienced multiple options. The most commons reason for preferring SDM was bodily autonomy (n = 1114) and against SDM was wanting to decide themselves instead (n = 11). Participants with a higher educational attainment were more likely to prefer and experience SDM. Older participants were more likely to experience multiple options. Conclusion: Our findings reaffirm that most cancer patients prefer SDM, and extend these findings to RT. However, we found a large gap between patients' desire for SDM, and the SDM experienced in our RT institute. SDM implementation strategies are needed and should focus on overcoming RT-specific and patient-reported barriers and opportunities.
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.