Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Patient Preferences Versus Physician Perceptions of Treatment Decisions in Cancer Care

Bruera, Eduardo, Sweeney, Catherine, Calder, Kathryn, Palmer, Lynn, Benisch-Tolley, Suzanne·2001·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine patient preferences as well as physician perceptions of these preferences for decision making and communication in palliative care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical decision-making preferences (DMPs) were prospectively studied in 78 assessable cancer patients after initial assessment at a palliative care outpatient clinic. DMPs were assessed with a questionnaire using five possible choices ranging from 1 (patient prefers to make the treatment decision) to 5 (patient prefers the physician to make the decision). In addition, the physician’s perception of this preference was assessed. RESULTS: Full concordance between the physician and the patient was seen in 30 (38%) of 78 cases; when the five original categories were recombined to cover active, shared, and passive decision making, there was concordance in 35 (45%) of 78 cases. The kappa coefficient for agreement between physician and patient was poor at 0.14 (95% confidence limit, −0.01 to 0.30) for simple kappa and 0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00 to 0.34) for weighted kappa (calculated on the three regrouped categories). Active, shared, and passive DMPs were chosen by 16 (20%) of 78, 49 (63%) of 78, and 13 (17%) of 78 patients, and by 23 (29%) of 78, 30 (39%) of 78, and 25 (32%) of 78 physicians, respectively. The majority of patients (49 [63%] of 78; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.74) preferred a shared approach with physicians. Physicians predicted that patients preferred a less shared approach than they in fact did. Patient age or sex did not significantly alter DMP. CONCLUSION: An individual approach is needed and each patient should be assessed prospectively for DMP.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2001.19.11.2883

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 326

Metadata

Authors
Bruera, E., Sweeney, C., Calder, K., Palmer, L., & Benisch-Tolley, S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2001-06-01
Volume
19
Issue
11
Pages
2883-2885
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1902591754
Cited by
326
References
0
FWCI
7.01
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient Preferences Versus Physician Perceptions of Treatment Decisions in Cancer Care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.11.2883
The paper
Bruera, E., Sweeney, C., Calder, K., Palmer, L., & Benisch-Tolley, S. (2001). Patient Preferences Versus Physician Perceptions of Treatment Decisions in Cancer Care. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.11.2883

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.