↓ Skip to main content

Treatment recommendations within the leeway of clinical guidelines: A qualitative interview study on oncologists’ clinical deliberation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Treatment recommendations within the leeway of clinical guidelines: A qualitative interview study on oncologists’ clinical deliberation
Published in
BMC Cancer, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3783-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Otte, S. Salloch, A. Reinacher-Schick, J. Vollmann

Abstract

Recommending the optimal treatment for an individual patient requires a well-balanced consideration of various medical, social and ethical factors. The interplay of these factors, interpretation of the patient's situation and understanding of the existing clinical guidelines can lead to divergent therapy recommendations, depending on the attending physician. Gaining a better understanding of the individual process of medical decision-making and the differences occurring will support the delivery of optimal individualized care within the clinical setting. A case vignette of a 64-year-old patient with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma was discussed with oncologists in 14 qualitative, semi-structured interviews at two academic institutions. Relevant factors that emerged were ranked by the participants using the Q card sorting method. Qualitative data analysis and descriptive statistics were performed. Oncologists recommend different therapeutic approaches within the leeway of the relevant clinical guidelines. One group of participants endorses a rather aggressive and potentially curative approach with a combination chemotherapy following the FOLFIRINOX protocol to provide the patient with the best chances of resectability. The second group suggests a milder chemotherapy approach with gemcitabine, highlighting the palliative approach and the patient's quality of life. Clinical guidelines are generally seen as an important point of reference, but are complicated to apply in highly individual cases. The physician's individual assessment of factors, such as biological age, general condition or prognosis, plays a decisive role in treatment recommendations, particularly in those cases which are not fully covered by guidelines. Judgment and discretion remain crucial in clinical decision-making and cannot and should not be fully ruled out by evidence-based guidelines. Therefore, a more comprehensive reflection on the interaction between evidence-based medicine and the physician's estimation of each individual case is desirable. Knowledge of existing barriers can enhance the implementation of guidelines, for example, through medical education.

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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 20%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 20 33%
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 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#20,452,930
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#6,529
of 8,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#372,570
of 437,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#119
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 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 8,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 437,733 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 155 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.