ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Advancing Knowledge of Values-Clarification Processes During Complex Decision-Making Among Older Adults With Advanced Cancer: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Trial Using Simulated Patient-Clinician Encounters.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults represent the majority of individuals diagnosed with cancer in the United States and often face complex treatment decisions that require balancing survival benefits with quality-of-life considerations. Despite the emphasis on shared decision-making (SDM), many patients report that clinical guidance does not reflect their personal values. Values-clarification tools have shown slight improvements in aligning care with patient values; however, the factors by which these tools influence decision-making are less studied.
objectiveThis pilot study aims to estimate the quality of values-clarification and SDM processes that occur during simulated diagnosis encounters for advanced cancer among participants who do and do not receive a values-clarification tool.
methodsPilot randomized study using simulated patient-clinician encounters to assess how values are elicited, processed, and integrated into treatment decisions. Participants aged 60 years and older with an advanced cancer diagnosis will be randomized to receive either a digital values-clarification instrument codeveloped through stakeholder engagement, referred to as Values and Outcomes to Improve Cancer Experiences (VOICE), or a general communication guide from the American Cancer Society (ACS). Each participant will engage in 2 simulated encounters (values-based and nonvalues-based), conducted by trained medical students portraying oncologists. The simulations are structured using a situational awareness framework. A novel rating scale, referred to as VECTORS (Values Elicitation and Clarification of Treatment Options Rating Scale), will measure the quality of rapport building, clinician engagement, and patient engagement through observation. Additional validated instruments will be used to quantify observed (OPTION-5) and patient-reported (CollaboRATE) SDM behaviors and patients' perceived usefulness of either VOICE or the ACS guide (PrepDM [Preparation for Decision-Making]). Qualitative interviews will be used to better understand participants' experiences during encounters and perceptions of VOICE or the ACS guide.
resultsThe study was conducted between September 2024 and December 2024, with a total of 44 participants, and is ready for data analysis.
conclusionsThis pilot study will provide preliminary evidence into the quality of values-clarification processes occurring during patient-clinician encounters among older adults making treatment decisions for advanced cancer. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/80531.
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.