Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39864414›Full record

ArticleOncology research and treatment2025

Evaluating the Benefits and Challenges of Using Patient Preferences as a Tool for Clinical Decision Making in Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Meetings within the National Health Service: A Qualitative Study.

Amber Naeem, Wright Jacob

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Amber NaeemGKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, London, UK.
Wright JacobFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMultidisciplinary team (MDT) oncology meetings foster collaboration among healthcare practitioners to determine the most appropriate course of action for cancer patient care. Defining what is "best" for a patient is complex, involving clinical guidelines, patient needs, evidence-based practices, and available treatment options. Patient participation offers unique insights into cultural and psychosocial preferences, shifting away from the paternalistic healthcare model. This study aimed to explore the benefits, barriers, and challenges associated with integrating patient preferences (PPs) into oncology MDT decision making.

methodsThirty participants from two major UK oncology centers completed questionnaires, with eight participating in the follow-up interviews.

resultsThe key benefits of incorporating PPs included improved patient satisfaction, treatment adherence, and decision-making efficiency. The major barriers were lack of clinical information, insufficient knowledge of preferences, and time constraints. Challenges within MDT meetings include poor attendance of key clinicians, inadequate chairing, and physical constraints.

conclusionThis is the first UK-based study to explore physicians' perspectives on incorporating PPs into oncology decision-making. While PPs are valued, integration is often hindered by systemic pressure within the NHS. The findings highlight the complex interplay between patient-centered care ideals and practical implementation challenges, suggesting areas for improvement that incorporate patient voices into cancer care decision-making.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingMedical OncologyNeoplasmsPatient Care TeamPatient PreferenceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionQualitative ResearchState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesAdverseDisease managementEthicsEventsMultidisciplinary team meetingsOncologyPatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID39864414
PMCPMC12054986

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.