Who decides? Shared decision-making among colorectal cancer surgery patients in China
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the Chinese sociocultural context, family caregivers' emotional burden may be further intensified by expectations that place family members at the centre of medical decision-making.
“In the Chinese sociocultural context, this emotional burden may be further intensified by expectations that place family members at the centre of medical decision-making.”
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