↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Training surgeons in shared decision-making with cancer patients aged 65 years and older: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Management and Research, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Training surgeons in shared decision-making with cancer patients aged 65 years and older: a pilot study
Published in
Cancer Management and Research, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/cmar.s147312
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noralie H Geessink, Yvonne Schoon, Marcel GM Olde Rikkert, Harry van Goor

Abstract

Treatment decision-making in older patients with colorectal (CRC) or pancreatic cancer (PC) needs improvement. We introduced the EASYcare in Geriatric Onco-surgery (EASY-GO) intervention to optimize the shared decision-making (SDM) process among these patients. The EASY-GO intervention comprised a working method with geriatric assessment and SDM training for surgeons. A non-equivalent control group design was used. Newly diagnosed CRC/PC patients aged ≥65 years were included. Primary patient-reported experiences were the quality of SDM (SDM-Q-9, range 0-100), involvement in decision-making (Visual Analog Scale for Involvement in the decision-making process [range 0-10]), satisfaction about decision-making (Visual Analog Scale for Satisfaction concerning the decision-making process [range 0-10]), and decisional regret (Decisional Regret Scale [DRS], range 0-100). Only for DRS, lower scores are better. A total of 71.4% of the involved consultants and 42.9% of the involved residents participated in the EASY-GO training. Only 4 trained surgeons consulted patients both before (n=19) and after (n=19) training and were consequently included in the analyses. All patient-reported experience measures showed a consistent but non-significant change in the direction of improved decision-making after training. According to surgeons, decisions were significantly more often made together with the patient after training (before, 38.9% vs after, 73.7%, p=0.04). Sub-analyses per diagnosis showed that patient experiences among older PC patients consistent and clinically relevant changed in the direction of improved decision-making after training (SDM-Q-9 +13.4 [95% CI -7.9; 34.6], VAS-I +0.27 [95% CI -1.1; 1.6], VAS-S +0.88 [95% CI -0.5; 2.2], DRS -10.3 [95% CI -27.8; 7.1]). This pilot study strengthens the practical potential of the intervention's concept among older surgical cancer patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Psychology 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,453,782
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#1,404
of 2,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,861
of 329,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#30
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,017 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.