ArticleAnnals of surgery2026
Defer, Share, or Drive the Decision: Empowering Patients With Varied Preferences to Engage in Decision-making (an Analysis From Alliance A231701CD).
Article in Annals of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing Early Intervention to Watchful Waiting: A Review on Risk Stratification and Management in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo understand how breast cancer patients experience the surgical decision process and identify strategies surgeons can employ to empower patients to engage in decision-making.
backgroundPatient engagement in decision-making is associated with improved patient outcomes. Although some patients prefer that their health care provider drive the decision, the benefits of engaging in decision-making hold true even for patients who prefer to defer to their provider.
methodsWe performed semi-structured interviews with patients who experienced low engagement in clinical trial A231701CD (n=30). We used qualitative content analysis to analyze data and organize it into overarching themes that represent experiences with decision-making.
resultsPatients could be grouped based on their experiences with the decision process into those who wanted to defer, share, or drive the decision. Three domains differentiated patients between groups: (1) overall disposition toward the surgeon, (2) tendency to exchange information and ask questions, and (3) attitudes toward how their preferences should shape the treatment decision. We identified surgeon behaviors that could optimize patient engagement. These opportunities were observed across all patients, regardless of their experience with the decision process.
conclusionsSurgeons can empower patients to engage in decision-making by getting to know patients as individuals, ensuring all treatment options are presented, and integrating patient preferences into the decision process. Through these actions, surgeons can help patients with varied preferences for decision-making engage in making high-quality decisions that reflect patients' priorities. These suggestions may have the greatest impact on socially disadvantaged patients and help to reduce disparities in care.
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.