ArticleBMC research notes2026
Japanese hematologists' and oncologists' perceptions of patient preferences for shared decision-making.
Article in BMC research notes, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesShared decision-making (SDM) is a key component of patient-centered oncology care, yet little is known about how Japanese physicians perceive their patients' roles in treatment decisions for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This study aimed to assess physicians' assumptions about patient preferences regarding SDM and to identify factors associated with these perceptions.
resultsAn online survey was completed by 227 hematologists and oncologists in Japan who had managed at least one DLBCL case in the past year. Most physicians believed patients prefer collaborative decision-making: 34.4% selected joint decision-making, 31.7% patient-led after physician input, and 26.4% physician-led incorporating patient input. Few perceived patients as preferring full autonomy (7.5%), and none indicated fully physician-led decisions. Greater experience with refractory patients was linked to more physician-led perceptions (OR = 0.95 per patient, p = 0.0033). Female physicians more often endorsed patient-led preferences (OR = 0.39, p = 0.0436), while those aged ≥60 years favored physician-led models (OR = 2.33, p = 0.0454). University hospital affiliation showed a trend toward more patient-led perceptions (OR = 0.65, p = 0.087). Overall, Japanese physicians predominantly assumed patients prefer shared rather than extreme decision-making roles.
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.