Observational studyBMC medical ethics2026
Prioritization and heterogeneity in information disclosure: a conjoint and cluster analysis on Chinese medical students' decision-making.
Observational study in BMC medical ethics, 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
Abstract
aimThe study aims to explore (1) Chinese medical students' prioritization of various factors in decision-making about disclosing information to patients with life-threatening illness, (2) heterogeneous subgroups with respective prioritization of factors and, (3) between-subgroup differences in basic demographics and background information.
methodsIn a cross-sectional observational survey, 196 second-year master's medical students in mainland China reported preferences for disclosing diagnoses and prognoses to terminal cancer patients in 18 scenarios varying in patient preference, family preference, patient sex, age, education, and finance. Conjoint analysis was performed on the entire sample for diagnosis and prognosis disclosure preferences. Cluster analysis identified homogeneous subgroups, followed by conjoint analysis within each cluster. ANOVAs and chi-squared tests compared basic demographics and background information between clusters.
resultsConjoint analysis found similar factor prioritization for both diagnosis and prognosis disclosure. The most important are patient preference (27.57%) and family preference (24.88%), followed by patient age (15.38%), finance (13.14%), education (11.10%), and sex (7.74%). With diagnosis and prognosis disclosure preference scores combined, cluster analysis identified three subgroups: A preference-driven group (n = 109) that mainly considers patient preference and family preference; a condition-driven group (n = 29) that prioritizes patient age and finance; and a balanced consideration group (n = 58) that takes relatively even consideration of all factors. Between-cluster comparisons unveiled significant differences in sex and major.
conclusionIncorporating both Western and Confucian values, as well as practical factors, these medical students act as active agents in the decision-making process, guided by their personal identities and professional beliefs.
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.