Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40302152›Full record

ArticlePsycho-oncology2025

Improving Shared Decision-Making in Early Phase Clinical Trials and Palliative Care: A Prospective Study on the Impact of an Online Value Clarification Tool Intervention.

Liza G G van Lent, Julia C M van Weert, Maja J A de Jonge, Mirte van der Ham, Esther Oomen-de Hoop, Martijn P Lolkema, Marjolein van Mil, Eelke H Gort, Jelle van Gurp, Jeroen Hasselaar and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Psycho-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Liza G G van LentDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4979-3051
Julia C M van WeertDepartment of Communication Science, Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2259-5864
Maja J A de JongeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1938-226X
Mirte van der HamDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7094-7510
Esther Oomen-de HoopDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2506-3852
Martijn P LolkemaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0466-2928
Marjolein van MilDepartment of Medical Oncology and Clinical Pharmacology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Eelke H GortDepartment of Medical Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7390-0761
Jelle van GurpDepartment of IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9904-2571
Jeroen HasselaarDepartment of Pain, Anaesthesiology and Palliative Care, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Carin C D van der RijtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5996-1242

Funding

Dutch Cancer Society KWF11086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study evaluated the impact of the OnVaCT intervention, a narrative-based Online Value Clarification Tool (OnVaCT), combined with communication training for oncologists, on shared decision-making (SDM) in discussions on potential early phase clinical trial participation and palliative care. These high-stakes decisions often challenge patients and oncologists in addressing patient values, a crucial component of SDM. We hypothesized that the intervention would improve oncologist-patient communication, specifically SDM application, and (consequently) reduce patient decisional conflict.

methodsIn this prospective, multicentre pre-post clinical study, patients completed two surveys, and their recorded consultations on early phase clinical trials and palliative care were assessed by independent coders. Pre-intervention patients received usual care, while post-intervention patients used the OnVaCT. Oncologists underwent communication training between study phases. Endpoints included decisional conflict (primary), the extent to which oncologists, patients and relatives participate in SDM, consultation length, and patient decisions (secondary).

resultsDecisional conflict (p = 0.394) did not differ between pre-test (n = 116, M = 30.0, SD = 16.9) and post-test (n = 99, M = 29.4, SD = 15.2). Oncologists significantly increased their SDM application post-intervention (p < 0.001; n = 129, M = 38.5, SD = 12.6) compared to pre-intervention (n = 163, M = 28.8, SD = 9.2), particularly when the OnVaCT was discussed. Other outcomes, including consultation length, remained stable.

conclusionsThe OnVaCT intervention enhanced SDM and supported value-based discussions, without prolonging consultations. Further research should explore whether additional implementation efforts could reduce decisional conflict and the intervention's potential impact on other patient-centred outcomes. Some decisions, however, may inherently involve unresolved conflict.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCommunicationDecision Making, SharedNeoplasmsPalliative CarePatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedConflict, PsychologicalDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOncologistscancerdecisional conflictearly phase clinical trialsoncologyonline toolpatient‐provider communicationshared decision‐makingvalue clarification

Identifiers

PMID40302152
PMCPMC12041624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.