The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Patient Preferences Versus Physician Perceptions of Treatment Decisions in Cancer Care
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians' communication behavior
Arora, N. K. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00449-5 · Cited by 661
The communication goals and needs of cancer patients: a review
Hack, T. F., Degner, L. F., & Parker, P. A. (2005) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.949 · Cited by 398
Predicting survival in patients with advanced disease
Glare, P., Sinclair, C., Downing, M., Stone, P., Maltoni, M., & Vigano, A. (2008) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.030 · Cited by 277
Ekdahl, A. W., Andersson, L., & Friedrichsen, M. (2010) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.026 · Cited by 202
Ruland, C. M., Holte, H. H., Roislien, J., Heaven, C., Hamilton, G. A., Kristiansen, J., Sandbaek, H., Kvaloy, S. O., Hasund, L., & Ellison, M. C. (2010) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.005660 · Cited by 121
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.