ArticleCureus2026
Healthcare Workers' Views on Approaches to Discussing Alternative Treatment Options in Multidisciplinary Cancer Care.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Information about curative treatment options with comparable efficacy (e.g. surgery or radiation) is often not fully provided to patients when those options fall outside the scope of practice of the oncologist(s) who directly see a patient. This study evaluates healthcare workers' views on the acceptability of this approach compared to others. Methods An electronic survey was sent to all physicians, trainees, nurses, therapists, researchers, and administrators at a cancer center. Respondents were asked to imagine being diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening illness that can be treated and cured in two standard ways, with similar efficacy but different side-effect profiles and impact on short- and long-term quality-of-life (Procedure A performed by Doctor A; Procedure B performed by Doctor B). Likert-type scales ranging from one (completely unacceptable) to five (completely acceptable) assessed Doctor A's approach to discussing treatment options in each scenario. Results In this study, 266 individuals responded to the questionnaire (response rate 16%). The mean (standard deviation) Likert-type score was 1.58 (±0.93) for Approach #1 where Doctor A only presents Procedure A; 1.75 (±0.98) for Approach #2 where Doctor A presents both options but favors Procedure A; 2.54 (±1.35) for Approach #3 where Doctor A presents both options but favors Procedure A despite offering a referral to Doctor B to discuss Procedure B; and 4.75 (±0.76) for Approach #4 where Doctor A routinely refers all patients to Doctor B so each treatment option is discussed with the physician who performs each. Each of these differences were statistically significant (
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.