Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 415

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of a Decision Aid on Knowledge and Treatment Decision Making for Breast Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Trial

Whelan, Timothy, Levine, Mark, Willan, Andrew, Gafni, Amiram, Sanders, Ken, Mirsky, Doug, Chambers, Shelley, O'Brien, Mary Ann, Reid, Susan, Dubois, Sacha·2004·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: The long-term results of randomized trials have demonstrated equivalent survival rates for mastectomy and breast-conserving therapy for the treatment of early stage breast cancer. Consequently, the choice of treatment should be based on a patient's preferences. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a decision aid regarding the different surgical treatment options on patient decision making. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cluster randomized trial for which general surgeons in the communities of central-west, and eastern Ontario, Canada, were randomly assigned to use the decision aid or not in the surgical consultation. Patients received the decision aid or not based on the surgeon seen. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty surgeons participated in the study. Of the 208 eligible women with newly diagnosed clinical stage I or II breast cancer seen by study surgeons, 201 agreed to be evaluated: 94 were assigned to the decision board and 107 to usual practice. Patients were recruited from November 1999 to April 2002. INTERVENTION: The decision board is a decision aid designed to help physicians inform their patients about different treatment options and to enable patients to express a preference for treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient knowledge about the surgical treatment of breast cancer; decisional conflict; satisfaction with decision making; and the treatment decision following the consultation. RESULTS: Patients in the decision board group had higher knowledge scores about their treatment options (66.9 vs 58.7; P<.001), had less decisional conflict (1.40 vs 1.62, P =.02), and were more satisfied with decision making (4.50 vs 4.32, P =.05) following the consultation. Patients who used the decision board were more likely to choose BCT (94% vs 76%, P =.03). CONCLUSIONS: The decision board was helpful in improving communication and enabling women to make a choice regarding treatment. Such instruments should be considered by surgeons when communicating the different surgical options to women with 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.292.4.435

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 415

Metadata

Authors
Whelan, T., Levine, M., Willan, A., Gafni, A., Sanders, K., Mirsky, D., Chambers, S., O'Brien, M. A., Reid, S., & Dubois, S.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2004-07-28
Volume
292
Issue
4
Pages
435
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2005090777
Cited by
415
References
2
FWCI
39.68
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: Effect of a Decision Aid on Knowledge and Treatment Decision Making for Breast Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.292.4.435
The paper
Whelan, T., Levine, M., Willan, A., Gafni, A., Sanders, K., Mirsky, D., Chambers, S., O'Brien, M. A., Reid, S., & Dubois, S. (2004). Effect of a Decision Aid on Knowledge and Treatment Decision Making for Breast Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.4.435

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.