Little is known about how physicians present diagnosis and treatment planning in routine practice in preference-sensitive treatment decisions. We evaluated completeness and quality of informed decision making in localized prostate cancer post biopsy encounters.
We analyzed audio-recorded office visits of 252 men with presumed localized prostate cancer (Gleason 6 and Gleason 7 scores) who were seeing 45 physicians at 4 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Data were collected between September 2008 and May 2012 in a trial of 2 decision aids (DAs). Braddock's previously validated Informed Decision Making (IDM) system was used to measure quality. Latent variable models for ordinal data examined the relationship of IDM score to treatment received.
Mean IDM score showed modest quality (7.61±2.45 out of 18) and high variability. Treatment choice and risks and benefits were discussed in approximately 95% of encounters. However, in more than one-third of encounters, physicians provided a partial set of treatment options and omitted surveillance as a choice. Informing quality was greater in patients treated with surveillance (β = 1.1, p = .04). Gleason score (7 vs 6) and lower age were often cited as reasons to exclude surveillance. Patient preferences were elicited in the majority of cases, but not used to guide treatment planning. Encounter time was modestly correlated with IDM score (r = 0.237, p = .01). DA type was not associated with IDM score.
Physicians informed patients of options and risks and benefits, but infrequently engaged patients in core shared decision-making processes. Despite patients having received DAs, physicians rarely provided an opportunity for preference-driven decision making. More attention to the underused patient decision-making and engagement elements could result in improved shared decision making.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 October 2026.
All research outputs
#4,467,107
of 34,598,043 outputs
Outputs from Medical Decision Making
#345
of 1,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,108
of 303,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Decision Making
#4
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,598,043 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 303,301 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
