CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Health Policy Implementation SciencePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving discussion of surgical treatment options for patients with breast cancer: local medical opinion leaders versus audit and performance feedback

Guadagnoli, Edward, Soumerai, Stephen B., Gurwitz, Jerry H., Borbas, Catherine, Shapiro, Charles L., Weeks, Jane C., Morris, Nora·2000·Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
DOI 10.1023/a:1006475012861
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We studied whether a hospital intervention utilizing medical opinion leaders and performance feedback reduced the proportion of women who reported that surgeons did not discuss options prior to surgery for early stage breast cancer. Opinion leaders provided clinical education to their peers using a variety of strategies and were selected for their ability to influence their peers. Performance feedback involved distributing performance reports that contained data on the outcomes of interest as well as on other treatment patterns. Twenty-eight hospitals in Minnesota were randomized to the intervention or to a control group that received performance feedback only. The proportion of patients at intervention hospitals who said that their surgeon did not discuss options decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from 33% to 17%, but a similar decrease was observed among control hospitals. Using medical opinion leaders to intervene in hospitals appeared as effective as performance feedback.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1006475012861

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 13 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. National Institutes of Health: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Treatment of early stage breast cancer. Bethesda, MD: NIH, June 18- 21, 1990
  2. Hiss RG, MacDonald R, David WR: Identification of physician educational influentials in small community hospitals. Res Med Educ 17: 283–288, 1978

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Guadagnoli, E., Soumerai, S. B., Gurwitz, J. H., Borbas, C., Shapiro, C. L., Weeks, J. C., & Morris, N.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
ORCID
Venue
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2000-05
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
171-175
ISSN
  • 0167-6806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7217
DOI
10.1023/a:1006475012861
OpenAlex
W2082391887
Cited by
45
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ca059408-03, 5r01ca057755-03)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA 59408, CA57755)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
breast cancer, surgical treatment options, shared decision-making, performance feedback, audit and feedback, peer influence, clinical teaching, early breast cancer
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cancer Care Facilities, Communication, Feedback, Female, Hospital Bed Capacity, Hospitals, University, Hospitals, Urban, Humans, Informed Consent, Mastectomy, Medical Audit, Middle Aged, Minnesota, Patient Education as Topic, Peer Group, Physician-Patient Relations, General Surgery, Task Performance and Analysis, Truth Disclosure, Mastectomy, Segmental

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