| Title |
Making an informed decision of Korean cancer patients: the discrepancy between a patient’s recall of information and the information needed for acquisition of radiotherapy informed consent
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-017-3848-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hye Ran Lee, Chiyeon Lim, Hyong Geun Yun, Seung Hee Kang, Do Yeun Kim |
| Abstract |
To give informed consent, a patient needs to sufficiently understand the information provided by a physician to decide among treatment options. Although shared decision-making is becoming an important aspect of patient-centered care, little is known about decision-making by cancer patients in Korea. This study assessed Korean cancer patients' understanding of treatment goals and the need to obtain further information after a physician obtained informed consent for radiotherapy. In this prospective study, doctors and patients completed questionnaires independently after informed consent for radiotherapy had been obtained. The questionnaires for the doctors and patients were comprised of matched items regarding treatment aims and the need for further information. The study enrolled 103 cancer patients scheduled for radiotherapy. The proportion of respondents who stated that the intent of treatment was to bring about a cure was 80.6% among the patients (83 of 103 patients) and 53.4% (55 of 103 patients) among the doctors (p = 0.000). The proportion of respondents who believed that the aim was prolongation of life was 16.5 and 1.9%, respectively (p = 0.000). Regarding the need for further information, 42.7% (44/103) of the patients did not want further information because they had faith in the physicians' medical expertise. Many Korean cancer patients misunderstand the aims of treatment and half of participants do not want further information. Physicians should address whether specific interventions can solve these barriers so that Korean cancer patients can make truly autonomous treatment decisions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,806,766
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,359
of 4,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,703
of 317,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#40
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 317,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.