Self‐reported use of shared decision‐making among breast cancer specialists and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing this approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians are increasingly urged to practice shared decision-making with their patients. Using a cross-sectional survey, we explored the extent to which Ontario breast cancer specialists report practising shared decision-making with their patients, their comfort level with this approach, and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: All Ontario surgeons and oncologists (radiation and medical) treating women with early-stage breast cancer were eligible for this study. Likert scales were used to measure physicians' comfort level with and self-reported use of different treatment decision-making approaches as well as perceived barriers and facilitators to treatment decision-making with patients. RESULTS: The response rate was 79% for oncologists and 72% for surgeons. More physicians from each specialty (87% of oncologists and 89% of surgeons) expressed high levels of comfort with clinical example 4 (designed to illustrate a shared approach) than with any of the other examples presented (e.g. the informed and paternalistic approach). Similarly, more oncologists and surgeons reported that their usual approach to treatment decision-making was like example 4 than like any other approach presented (56% of oncologists and 69% of surgeons, respectively). Comfort levels with example 4 for oncologists and surgeons were 31% and 20% higher, respectively, than the reported use of this approach. Lack of time and patient anxiety, patient lack of information and/or misinformation, and patient unwillingness or inability to participate were perceived by a substantial minority of both oncologists and surgeons as barriers to patient involvement in treatment decision-making. Key facilitators identified included patients' emotional readiness, support, information and trust in the physician. More research is needed to identify contextual, physician, patient, and interaction factors that will facilitate shared decision-making in the medical encounter and help both parties create an environment conducive to implementing this approach to the extent desired.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".