ArticlePsycho-oncology2026
Thinking, Feeling, Choosing: How Affect Is Reflected in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Making-A Qualitative Study.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundShared decision-making (SDM) emphasizes informed, value-aligned choices, yet affect has not been a primary focus and is rarely addressed explicitly in cancer contexts. Among men with low-to intermediate-risk prostate cancer (LIRPC), active treatment and active surveillance each involve distinct affective challenges that may influence risk perception, decisional uncertainty, and treatment satisfaction. Despite prior work in affect and decision making literature, its integration into cancer contexts remains limited.
aimsTo address the gap, this study examined how affect, alongside cognition and psychosocial factors, was reflected in men's accounts of LIRPC treatment decision making, guided by SDM and affective science frameworks.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 28 men with LIRPC across three treatment pathways: AS, AT, and AS-AT transition. Interviews were theory-informed and explored (a) how participants learned and interpreted diagnostic information; (b) how thoughts, emotions, and relationships were experienced in decision-making; and (c) how men reflected on preferred roles. Participants also completed the Control Preferences Scale.
resultsEleven themes emerged across domains. Understanding of information depended on both the clarity of medical communication and its relational context. Participants described strong affective responses at diagnosis, awaiting test results, and shortly before surgery. Decision-making was often deliberative, with men weighing options alongside personal values and priorities, physician trust, and family support. Post-treatment reflections emphasized autonomy and value alignment, with coping used to manage affect and maintain a sense of control.
conclusionsIn LIRPC decision-making, affect appeared to vary across contexts and time points. Although decisions were often described as deliberative, affect seemed embedded in how men interpreted information, navigated relationships, and defined what mattered (including quality of life, anticipated treatment outcomes, and autonomy), which influenced how options were weighed. Incorporating affect into decision support, particularly around key moments, may strengthen SDM and treatment satisfaction.
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.