Caregiving and Shared Decision Making in Breast and Prostate Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A cancer diagnosis can impact patients' and caregivers' lives, posing different challenging situations. In particular, breast cancer and prostate cancer are two types of cancer involving families and especially spouses in challenges linked with the diagnosis and treatment process. Caregivers are usually involved in the treatment decision-making (TDM) process concerning patients' clinical pathway, cancer treatment, and ongoing therapies. To date, no contributions provide an exhaustive overview of the role of caregivers in cancer care and their involvement in the TDM process related to the therapies. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of caregiver and patients experiences and perceptions of caregiver involvement in cancer TDM. Articles were searched on Public/Publisher MEDLINE (PubMed), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), and American Psychological Association APA PsycINFO. RESULTS: 17 studies were included, 10 on prostate cancer and 7 on breast cancer. According to the reviewed studies, patients and caregivers experienced the cancer diagnosis with a sense of unity. Most patients preferred to have an active or collaborative role with caregivers in TDM, feeling it was important to consult or share the decision made with their caregivers. Caregivers preferred to collaborate with patients or let patients decide by themselves after considering their opinions. Caregiver involvement could have a positive influence on the patient's medical decisions, even if cancer diagnosis and treatments overwhelmed patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of using a perspective that focuses on the relationship between a patient and caregivers when they receive a cancer diagnosis and have to make a treatment decision. Targeting caregiver-patient dyads, rather than individuals, is important since a supported relationship could have a protective effect on psychological distress, quality of life (QOL), and relationship satisfaction. Moreover, dyads may benefit from interventions that focus on the needs of both the patient and caregiver.
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 | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".