Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41525260›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

"On paper it was a surgical success, but the reality was very different": A qualitative interview study using narrated casuistry to explore patient context in specialist care.

Linda Modderkolk, Yvonne Schoon, Hugo Touw, Eva Stortelder, Marieke Voet, Yvonne Engels, Anne B Wichmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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

7 authors.

Linda ModderkolkDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2522-9889
Yvonne SchoonDepartment of Geriatrics, Radboudumc Center for Integrated Care, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Hugo TouwDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Eva StortelderDepartment of Global Public Health and Bioethics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marieke VoetDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3017-5410
Yvonne EngelsDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Anne B WichmannDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0085-9782

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveApproaches such as shared decision-making emphasize effective patient-provider communication to ensure that patient preferences are integrated into clinical practice. However, they often overlook crucial aspects of patient context, which can affect the appropriateness and feasibility of care planning. Applying a contextual care model addresses this gap, yet the extent to which relevant patient context is considered in routine clinical practice remains largely unknown. Previous studies have primarily focused on the United States, leaving a gap in understanding how care is contextualized in Europe. This study explored how medical specialists in the Netherlands interpret, perceive and incorporate patient context into care planning.

methodsA qualitative interview study was performed with 18 medical specialists from 11 specialties working in academic and peripheral hospitals. Open coding was applied to explore how specialists defined and perceived patient context. Directed content analysis, based on the 4C coding process, was applied to analyze narrated case examples of contextualized and non-contextualized care.

resultsAll participants acknowledged the importance of patient context for providing appropriate care, though they differed in how broadly they defined it - from physical and cognitive abilities, to social, emotional and environmental circumstances. Context was considered most relevant for making treatment decisions and, by half of the participants, for ongoing monitoring of treatment. Participants also described cases where contextualization developed over time or was shared among team members. Key challenges included distinguishing context from patient preferences and sufficiently probing red flags to inform care planning.

conclusionMedical specialists emphasized the essential role of patient context in enabling personalized and efficient decision-making, enhancing care monitoring, and ultimately improving clinical outcomes. However, systematic and continuous integration of contextual information into decision-making remains challenging. Addressing this requires proactive exploration, improved communication training, and organizational support to embed contextualized care in routine practice.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceSpecializationAdultDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID41525260
PMCPMC12795376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.