ArticleInternational journal of behavioral medicine2026
Concorde Syndrome in the Treatment of People with Cancer: Validation of a Measurement Instrument.
Article in International journal of behavioral medicine, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical decision-making in oncology is influenced not only by clinical guidelines but also by psychological, emotional, and social factors, especially in end-of-life care. One such influence is Concorde syndrome, known as the sunk cost fallacy, where past investments lead physicians to continue treatment even when it is no longer medically justified. Although discussed in behavioral science, this phenomenon has not been systematically measured in oncology practice. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate a psychometric instrument to assess the psychosocial factors contributing to potentially irrational continuation of treatment among medical oncologists managing patients with no remaining therapeutic options.
methodThis cross-sectional psychometric study comprised both scale development and validation phases. Item generation was informed by literature review and expert consultation, followed by a two-round Delphi panel for content validation and pilot testing. The final 20-item CONCORD Scale underwent exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as assessments of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity.
resultsExploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with a sample of 116 medical oncologists, and confirmatory factor analysis with 337 participants in Turkey. EFA revealed a four-factor structure: (1) Emotionally Driven Decision-Making, (2) Impact of Prior Clinical Experience, (3) Professional Pressure and Anxiety, and (4) Patient-Centered Decision Conflict. These factors accounted for 74.2% of the total variance, with item loadings ranging from 0.594 to 0.754. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed good model fit (CFI = 0.937, RMSEA = 0.052, GFI = 0.834). Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.834 to 0.948 across subscales and reached 0.969 for the overall scale. Significant inter-subscale and total score correlations further supported structural validity.
conclusionThe CONCORD (Continuation Over Necessity: Cognitive and Overriding Reasons in Decision-making) Scale is the first validated instrument to quantify emotional, experiential, professional, and interpersonal factors that may lead oncologists to continue treatment beyond clinical necessity in end-of-life care. It offers a novel tool for both research and educational use in ethically sensitive clinical contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40963053What 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.