Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7

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

A meta-analysis on the role older adults with cancer favour in treatment decision making

van der Waal, Maike S., Seghers, Nelleke, Welsing, Paco M.J., van Huis, Lieke H., Emmelot-Vonk, Marielle H., Hamaker, Marije E.·2023·Journal of Geriatric Oncology
DOI 10.1016/j.jgo.2022.09.012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction In the complex setting of oncological treatment decision making, balancing professional guidance while respecting patient involvement can be a challenge. We set out to assess the role adults with cancer favour in treatment decision making (TDM), including differences across age groups and change over time. Materials and methods A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase, for studies on role preference of (older) adults with cancer in oncological treatment decision making. A meta-analysis was conducted based on Control Preference Scale (CPS) data, a questionnaire on patient role preference in TDM. Results This meta-analysis includes 33 studies reporting CPS data comprising 17,197 adults with cancer. Mean age was 60.6 years old for studies that specified age (24 studies, 6155 patients). During the last decade, patients' role preference shifted towards significantly more active involvement in TDM (p = 0.006). No age-dependent subgroup differences have been identified; both younger and older adults, defined as, respectively, below and above 65 years old, favour active involvement in treatment decision making. Discussion Over time, adults with cancer have shifted towards more active role preference in treatment decision making. In current cancer care, a large majority prefers taking an active role, irrespective of age.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jgo.2022.09.012

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Reyna, 2015, Decision making and cancer, Am Psychol, 70, 105, 10.1037/a0036834 · DOI
  2. Sedrak, 2021, Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: a systematic review of barriers and interventions, CA Cancer J Clin, 71, 78, 10.3322/caac.21638 · DOI
  3. Biganzoli, 2012, Management of elderly patients with breast cancer: updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) and European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA), Lancet Oncol, 13, 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70383-7 · DOI
  4. Gärtner, 2019, Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case, BMJ Open, 9, 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032483 · DOI
  5. Singh, 2011, Preferred roles in treatment decision making among patients with cancer: a pooled analysis of studies using the control preferences scale, Am J Manag Care, 16, 688
  6. Rahman, 2018, Asia Pacific observatory on health systems and policies, Jpn Health Syst Rev Health Syst Transit, 8
  7. Nakayama, 2020, Shared decision making, physicians’ explanations, and treatment satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey of prostate cancer patients, BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 20, 10.1186/s12911-020-01355-z · DOI
  8. Degner, 1997, The control preferences scale - pubMed, Can J Nurs Res, 29, 21
  9. van Stam, 2018, Shared decision making in prostate Cancer care—encouraging every patient to be actively involved in decision making or ensuring the patient preferred level of involvement?, J Urol, 200, 582, 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.3091 · DOI
  10. Drummond, 2018, Incongruence in treatment decision making is associated with lower health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors: results from the PiCTure study, Support Care Cancer, 26, 1645
  11. Puts, 2017, Chemotherapy treatment decision-making experiences of older adults with cancer, their family members, oncologists and family physicians: a mixed methods study, Support Care Cancer, 25, 879, 10.1007/s00520-016-3476-8 · DOI
  12. Lawhon, 2020, “It’s important to me”: a qualitative analysis on shared decision-making and patient preferences in older adults with early-stage breast cancer, Psychooncology., 30, 167, 10.1002/pon.5545 · DOI
  13. Cuypers, 2016, Prostate cancer survivors with a passive role preference in treatment decision-making are less satisfied with information received: results from the PROFILES registry, Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig, 34
  14. Drummond, 2017, Incongruence in treatment decision making is associated with lower health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors: results from the PiCTure study, Support Care Cancer, 26, 1645
  15. Hamelinck, 2018, Preferred and perceived participation of younger and older patients in decision making about treatment for early breast cancer: a prospective study, Clin Breast Cancer, 18, 10.1016/j.clbc.2017.11.013 · DOI
  16. Hotta, 2010, Desire for information and involvement in treatment decisions: lung cancer patients’ preferences and their physicians’ perceptions: results from Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group Trial 0705, JTO Acquis, 5, 1668
  17. Ellis, 2016, Patient-reported roles, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of stage I rectal cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS), Dis Colon Rectum
  18. Mack, 2016, Cancer treatment decision-making among young adults with lung and colorectal cancer: a comparison with adults in middle age, Psychooncology., 25, 1085, 10.1002/pon.3949 · DOI
  19. Schaede, 2017, Shared decision-making in patients with prostate cancer in Japan: patient preferences versus physician perceptions, J Glob Oncol, 2018, 1
  20. Zhai, 2020, Who decides? Shared decision-making among colorectal cancer surgery patients in China, Support Care Cancer, 28, 5353, 10.1007/s00520-020-05391-3 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Almyroudi, 2010, Decision-making preferences and information needs among Greek breast cancer patients, Psychooncology., 20, 871, 10.1002/pon.1798 · DOI
  22. Ernst, 2010, Desired and perceived participation in medical decision-making in patients with haemato-oncological diseases, Leuk Res, 34, 390, 10.1016/j.leukres.2009.06.024 · DOI
  23. Ernst, 2013, Patient participation in the medical decision-making process in haemato-oncology - a qualitative study, Eur J Cancer Care (Engl), 22, 684, 10.1111/ecc.12077 · DOI
  24. Mahmoodi, 2019, Shared decision-making – rhetoric and reality: women’s experiences and perceptions of adjuvant treatment decision-making for breast cancer, J Health Psychol, 24, 1082, 10.1177/1359105316689141 · DOI
  25. Kehl, 2015, Association of actual and preferred decision roles with patient-reported quality of care: shared decision making in cancer care, JAMA Oncol, 1, 50, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2014.112 · DOI
  26. Berger, 2017, Preferences and actual chemotherapy decision-making in the greater plains collaborative breast cancer study⁎, Acta Oncol (Madr), 56, 1690, 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1374555 · DOI
  27. Makimoto, 2020, Patients’ preferences and perceptions of lung cancer treatment decision making: results from Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group Trial 1406, Acta Oncol, 59, 324, 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1679880 · DOI
  28. Geessink, 2017, Key elements of optimal treatment decision-making for surgeons and older patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer: a qualitative study, Patient Educ Couns, 100, 473, 10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.013 · DOI
  29. Mohile, 2021, Evaluation of geriatric assessment and management on the toxic effects of cancer treatment (GAP70+): a cluster-randomised study, Lancet, 398, 1894, 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01789-X · DOI
  30. Atherton, 2013, The relation between cancer patient treatment decision-making roles and quality of life, Cancer, 119, 2342, 10.1002/cncr.28046 · DOI
  31. Bieber, 2018, How does a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention for oncologists affect participation style and preference matching in patients with breast and colon cancer?, J Cancer Educ, 33, 708, 10.1007/s13187-016-1146-7 · DOI
  32. Brown, 2012, 30, 857
  33. Chawla, 2013, Why do some patients prefer to leave decisions up to the doctor: lack of self-efficacy or a matter of trust?, J Cancer Surviv, 74, 592, 10.1007/s11764-013-0298-2 · DOI
  34. Cohen, 2015, Cancer patients’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to patient participation in symptom management during an episode of admission, Cancer Nurs, 38, 458, 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000226 · DOI
  35. Colley, 2017, Factors associated with oncology patients’ involvement in shared decision making during chemotherapy, Psychooncology., 26, 1972, 10.1002/pon.4284 · DOI
  36. Colombet, 2020, Validity of the French version of the autonomy preference index and its adaptation for patients with advanced cancer, PLoS One, 15, 10.1371/journal.pone.0227802 · DOI
  37. Ernst, 2010, Desired and perceived participation in medical decision-making in patients with haemato-oncological diseases, Leuk Res, 34, 390, 10.1016/j.leukres.2009.06.024 · DOI
  38. Gutnik, 2020, Breast cancer surgery decision role perceptions and choice of surgery, Ann Surg Oncol, 27, 3623, 10.1245/s10434-020-08485-8 · DOI
  39. Herrmann, 2018, Not asking cancer patients about their preferences does make a difference. A cross-sectional study examining cancer patients’ preferred and perceived role in decision-making regarding their last important cancer treatment, Eur J Cancer Care (Engl), 27, 10.1111/ecc.12871 · DOI
  40. Kunneman, 2014, Treatment preferences and involvement in treatment decision making of patients with endometrial cancer and clinicians, Br J Cancer, 1114, 674, 10.1038/bjc.2014.322 · DOI
  41. Moth, 2016, Patients’ preferred and perceived roles in making decisions about adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer, Lung Cancer, 95, 8, 10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.02.009 · DOI
  42. Pardon, 2009, Preferences of advanced lung cancer patients for patient-centred information and decision-making: a prospective multicentre study in 13 hospitals in Belgium, Patient Educ Couns, 77, 421, 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.011 · DOI
  43. Pieterse, 2008, Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration, Br J Cancer, 99, 875, 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604611 · DOI
  44. Stacey, 2010, Exploring cancer treatment decision-making by patients: a descriptive study, Curr Oncol, 17, 85, 10.3747/co.v17i4.527 · DOI
  45. Yennurajalingam, 2013, Decisional control preferences of Hispanic patients with advanced cancer from the United States and Latin America, J Pain Symptom Manage, 46, 376, 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.08.015 · DOI

Cited by

See all 7

Metadata

Authors
van der Waal, M. S., Seghers, N., Welsing, P. M. J., van Huis, L. H., Emmelot-Vonk, M. H., & Hamaker, M. E.
Venue
Journal of Geriatric Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
101383
ISSN
1879-4068
DOI
10.1016/j.jgo.2022.09.012
Cited by
7
References
2
Language
en
Licence
Funders
European Commission (945218)

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: A meta-analysis on the role older adults with cancer favour in treatment decision making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jgo.2022.09.012
The paper
van der Waal, M. S., Seghers, N., Welsing, P. M. J., van Huis, L. H., Emmelot-Vonk, M. H., & Hamaker, M. E. (2023). A meta-analysis on the role older adults with cancer favour in treatment decision making. Journal of Geriatric Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2022.09.012

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.