ArticleBJU international2026
Empowering choices: insights from healthcare professionals on shared decision-making in kidney cancer.
Article in BJU international, 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
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on what enables or hinders shared decision-making (SDM) in everyday small renal masses (SRM) management. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted, which informed a structured discussion guide. Subsequently, qualitative research was undertaken with HCPs involved in the management of SRM across the Netherlands, Germany, and the UK.
resultsIn total, 30 HCPs participated in the study, comprising semi-structured interviews and a focus group (the Netherlands 10 HCPs; Germany 11; UK nine). While SDM was consistently viewed as important and the concept could be explained, actual implementation varied substantially across countries. In the UK and the Netherlands, patients were typically offered, and HCPs discussed all major treatment options supported by nurse involvement. In Germany, SDM was often constrained: not all major treatment options were always presented, often influenced by resource limitations and financial incentives favouring surgery. Across all countries, key barriers to SDM included clinician bias, variable patient engagement, and time constraints. Facilitators to SDM were highlighted to be clear communication, visual aids, and audio-recording consultations.
conclusionsShared decision-making is widely valued but inconsistently delivered and is heavily shaped by national structures. Tackling the identified barriers and leveraging known facilitators are key to making SDM a reality in SRM care.
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.