Cited by 50Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEthics and bioethics in healthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Who decides? Shared decision-making among colorectal cancer surgery patients in China

Zhai, Huiwen, Lavender, Christopher, Li, Cong, Wu, Haotan, Gong, Ni, Cheng, Yu·2020·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Purpose Patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) is advised within the English medical literature for its positive impact. The benefits of such approaches are said to foster increased trust, patient decision satisfaction, and even better outcomes. Looking at a Chinese cancer hospital, this research sought to understand how surgical decision-making was made among colorectal cancer patients. Methods Observations (n = 36) and semi-structured interviews (n = 24) were conducted with patients and family members. Results In the observations, 69.4% of the participating families made the decision to undergo surgery at the end of the consultation. In the interviews, three main themes emerged in regard to the characteristics in the family decision-making model, and they included three structural elements: the patient's sick role, family functional structure, and control of information. Conclusion This study showed that the Chinese decision-making model is different from the western SDM model. In the Chinese context, family members dominated the decision-making process which raised concerns around informed consent. This may benefit patients insofar as receiving timely treatment in the short term but at the same time may be at the expense of limiting patient's autonomy. The promotion of a new model or a model encompassing family-centered care values may be more appropriate in clinical practice in China that can address the issues around informed consent.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-020-05391-3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 27 · Cited by 50

Authors
Zhai, H., Lavender, C., Li, C., Wu, H., Gong, N., & Cheng, Y.
Affiliations
  • Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
  • Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (CN)
Corresponding author
Cheng, Yu
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2020-03-05
Volume
28
Issue
11
Pages
5353-5361
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W3009916786
Cited by
50
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Major Program of the National Social Science Fund of China (18ZDA362)
  • Guangzhou Concord's Medical Humanities Research and Education Foundation (201920)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
shared decision-making, colorectal cancer surgery, family decision-making, patient-centered care, informed consent, patient autonomy, family-centered care, Chinese patients, surgical decision-making
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Shared, Adult, Aged, China, Decision Making, Family, Female, Humans, Informed Consent, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Physician-Patient Relations, Professional-Family Relations, Referral and Consultation, Colorectal Neoplasms, Patient Satisfaction, Patient-Centered Care, Comprehension, Trust, Young Adult

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