ArticlePloS one2026
Person-centered care, shared decision-making, and service modularity in colorectal cancer treatment: A mixed-method study of patient and professional perspectives.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer care pathways improve outcomes through standardization but often lack flexibility to address individual needs. In this case study, we applied a composite model to examine its applicability by studying how person-centered care, shared decision-making, and service modularity are enacted within the colorectal cancer pathway of a large Dutch teaching hospital.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional mixed-method single case study. Patients completed questionnaires on health-related well-being and colorectal cancer care experiences. We explored person-centered care, shared decision-making, and service modularity and their interaction using questionnaires (patients) and semi-structured interviews (patients and healthcare professionals). Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed thematically.
resultsOur findings showed gaps between formal structures and actual delivered care, especially in how shared decision-making and service modularity work together to provide person-centered care. Healthcare professionals' limited modular thinking restricted customization. Information was delivered mainly according to protocols and did not fully address individual preferences, while preference elicitation was inconsistent. Care packages tended to follow clinical routines rather than reflect true patient priorities. Coordination was generally sufficient but revealed weaknesses during care transitions.
conclusionThe composite model provides a practical framework to enhance person-centered cancer care by revealing structural barriers to shared decision-making and customization. Promoting modular thinking among professionals supports flexible, preference-sensitive care and offers actionable strategies to improve both efficiency and patient engagement across oncological pathways.
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.