↓ Skip to main content

Decision aids for second-line palliative chemotherapy: a randomised phase II multicentre trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision aids for second-line palliative chemotherapy: a randomised phase II multicentre trial
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0529-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda J. M. Oostendorp, Petronella B. Ottevanger, A. Rogier T. Donders, Agnes J. van de Wouw, Ivonne J. H. Schoenaker, Tineke J. Smilde, Winette T. A. van der Graaf, Peep F. M. Stalmeier

Abstract

There is increasing recognition of the delicate balance between the modest benefits of palliative chemotherapy and the burden of treatment. Decision aids (DAs) can potentially help patients with advanced cancer with these difficult treatment decisions, but providing detailed information could have an adverse impact on patients' well-being. The objective of this randomised phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DAs for patients with advanced cancer considering second-line chemotherapy. Patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer considering second-line treatment were randomly assigned to usual care (control group) or usual care plus a DA (intervention group) in a 1:2 ratio. A nurse offered a DA with information on adverse events, tumour response and survival. Outcome measures included patient-reported well-being (primary outcome: anxiety) and quality of the decision-making process and the resulting choice. Of 128 patients randomised, 45 were assigned to the control group and 83 to the intervention group. Median age was 62 years (range 32-81), 63% were female, and 73% had colorectal cancer. The large majority of patients preferred treatment with chemotherapy (87%) and subsequently commenced treatment with chemotherapy (86%). No adverse impact on patients' well-being was found and nurses reported that consultations in which the DAs were offered went well. Being offered the DA was associated with stronger treatment preferences (3.0 vs. 2.5; p=0.030) and increased subjective knowledge (6.7 vs. 6.3; p=0.022). Objective knowledge, risk perception and perceived involvement were comparable between the groups. DAs containing detailed risk information on second-line palliative treatment could be delivered to patients with advanced cancer without having an adverse impact on patient well-being. Surprisingly, the DAs only marginally improved the quality of the decision-making process. The effectiveness of DAs for palliative treatment decisions needs further exploration. Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR): NTR1113 (registered on 2 November 2007).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 18%
Student > Master 19 16%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 36 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 19%
Psychology 9 8%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 44 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 16 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,092,869
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#125
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,403
of 316,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 316,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.