The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do patients benefit from participating in medical decision making? Longitudinal follow-up of women with breast cancer
Abstract
This study sought to examine the relationships between decisional role (preferred and assumed) at time of surgical treatment (baseline), congruence between assumed role at baseline and preferred role 3 years later (follow-up), and quality of life at follow-up. Two hundred and five women diagnosed with breast cancer completed the decisional role preference scale at baseline and follow-up, and the EORTC QLQ-C30 at follow-up. A statistically significant number of women had decisional role regret, with most of these women preferring greater involvement in treatment planning than was afforded them. Women who indicated at baseline that they were actively involved in choosing their surgical treatment had significantly higher overall quality of life at follow-up than women who indicated passive involvement. These actively involved women had significantly higher physical and social functioning and significantly less fatigue than women who assumed a passive role. Quality of life was significantly related to reports of experienced involvement in treatment decision making, but not to reports of preferred involvement, or congruence between preferred and experienced involvement.
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
Cites
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., Haes, J. C. J. M. D., et al. (1993) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 · Cited by 16,005
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137 · cited 1×
“The past two decades of psychosocial oncology research have seen increasing emphasis on the values of patient autonomy and shared decision making (Balint and Shelton, 1996; Charles et al., 1997; Quill and Brody, 1996).”
Background
Cited by
Légaré, F., Ratté, S., Gravel, K., & Graham, I. D. (2008) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.018 · Cited by 1,321
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare
Stiggelbout, A. M., Weijden, T. V. D., Wit, M. P. T. D., Frosch, D., Legare, F., Montori, V. M., Trevena, L., & Elwyn, G. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e256 · Cited by 1,014
Health Information—Seeking Behavior
Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2007) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732307305199 · Cited by 894
Légaré, F., & Witteman, H. O. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1078 · Cited by 783
Gravel, K., Légaré, F., & Graham, I. D. (2006) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-16 · Cited by 755
Metadata
- Authors
- Hack, T. F., Degner, L. F., Watson, P., & Sinha, L.
- Venue
- Psycho-Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-19
- ISSN
- 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1611
- OpenAlex
- W2143535194
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 30.17
- 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
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.