ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Evidence on Patient Decision Aids and Shared Decision-Making Across Breast Centers in Europe: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. 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.
- Establishing development strategies and improvement paths for decision coach competencies in shared decision-making using an integrated accessibility-performance analysis and network relation map approach.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionPatient-centricity calls for accurate consideration of patients' preferences at every step of the care pathway. Decision aids (DAs) are interventions that provide patients with information about treatment options, enabling shared decision-making (SDM). This study investigated the practice of SDM by breast cancer (BC) specialists and the diffusion of DAs in the treatment of BC in Europe. The secondary objective of the study was to explore heterogeneity across respondents' subgroups.MethodsA prospective, cross-sectional, cross-country questionnaire targeting breast specialists was distributed online across breast cancer networks at both national and European level. The survey results were analyzed descriptively. Mann-Whitney-U tests, and probit regressions were performed to explore differences between subgroups.ResultsRespondents were mostly medical oncologists and surgeons. Respondents expressed high comfort with SDM approach (mean: 4.29, CI95%: 4.15-4.44). The majority reported DAs were available, and used, in their organization. Statistically significant gender differences were observed, indicating that female physicians might be more prone to adopting SDM approaches with patients.ConclusionsPatient-centricity calls for consideration of patients' values. The specialists in this survey showed a promising attitude towards SDM. DAs availability translates into use, although this mainly refers to paper tools, whereas digital tools seem mostly illustrated in the literature.
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.