The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Information Needs and Decisional Preferences in Women With Breast Cancer
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the degree of involvement women with breast cancer wanted in medical decision making, extent to which they believed they had achieved their preferred level of involvement, and types of information they judged to be most important. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey at 2 tertiary oncology referral clinics and 2 community hospital oncology clinics in Winnipeg, Manitoba. PATIENTS: Consecutive sample of 1012 women with a confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer who were scheduled for a visit at 1 of 4 hospital oncology clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The following measures were used: (1) Preferences about various levels of participation in treatment decision making; (2) the extent to which subjects believed they had achieved their preferred levels of involvement in decision making; and (3) priority needs for information and how these needs differed by selected sociodemographic, disease, and treatment variables. RESULTS: A total of 22% of women wanted to select their own cancer treatment, 44% wanted to select their treatment collaboratively with their physicians, and 34% wanted to delegate this responsibility to their physicians. Only 42% of women believed they had achieved their preferred level of control in decision making. The 2 most highly ranked types of information were related to knowing about chances of cure and spread of disease. Women younger than 50 years rated information about physical and sexual attractiveness as more important than did older women (P<.001); women older than 70 years rated information about self-care as more important than did younger women (P=.002); and women who had a positive family history of breast cancer rated information about family risk as more important than did other women (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: The substantial discrepancy between women's preferred and attained levels of involvement in treatment decision making suggests that systematic approaches to assess and respond to women's desired level of participation in treatment decision making need to be evaluated. Priorities for information identified in this study provide an empirical basis to guide communication with women seeking care for breast cancer.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Communication and Uncertainty Management
Brashers, D. E. (2001) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x · Cited by 1,407
Gill, S., Loprinzi, C. L., Sargent, D. J., Thomé, S. D., Alberts, S. R., Haller, D. G., Benedetti, J., Francini, G., Shepherd, L. E., Francois Seitz, J., et al. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.09.059 · Cited by 1,021
Cancer Screening in Elderly Patients: A Framework for Individualized Decision Making
Walter, L. C., & Covinsky, K. E. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.21.2750 · Cited by 1,003
Self-management: Enabling and empowering patients living with cancer as a chronic illness
McCorkle, R., Ercolano, E., Lazenby, M., Schulman-Green, D., Schilling, L. S., Lorig, K., & Wagner, E. H. (2011) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20093 · Cited by 950
Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres
Jenkins, V, Fallowfield, L., & Saul, J. (2001) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1054/bjoc.2000.1573 · Cited by 845
Metadata
- Authors
- Degner, L. F.
- Venue
- JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1997-05-14
- Volume
- 277
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 1485
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2034625941
- Cited by
- 1,136
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 80.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Information Needs and Decisional Preferences in Women With Breast Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1997.03540420081039
- The paper
- Degner, L. F. (1997). Information Needs and Decisional Preferences in Women With Breast Cancer. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540420081039
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.