↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Improving Breast Cancer Surgical Treatment Decision Making: The iCanDecide Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
30 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Improving Breast Cancer Surgical Treatment Decision Making: The iCanDecide Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
Journal of Clinical Oncology, January 2018
DOI 10.1200/jco.2017.74.8442
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah T Hawley, Yun Li, Lawrence C An, Kenneth Resnicow, Nancy K Janz, Michael S Sabel, Kevin C Ward, Angela Fagerlin, Monica Morrow, Reshma Jagsi, Timothy P Hofer, Steven J Katz

Abstract

Purpose This study was conducted to determine the effect of iCanDecide, an interactive and tailored breast cancer treatment decision tool, on the rate of high-quality patient decisions-both informed and values concordant-regarding locoregional breast cancer treatment and on patient appraisal of decision making. Methods We conducted a randomized clinical trial of newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer making locoregional treatment decisions. From 22 surgical practices, 537 patients were recruited and randomly assigned online to the iCanDecide interactive and tailored Web site (intervention) or the iCanDecide static Web site (control). Participants completed a baseline survey and were mailed a follow-up survey 4 to 5 weeks after enrollment to assess the primary outcome of a high-quality decision, which consisted of two components, high knowledge and values-concordant treatment, and secondary outcomes (decision preparation, deliberation, and subjective decision quality). Results Patients in the intervention arm had higher odds of making a high-quality decision than did those in the control arm (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.92; P = .0004), which was driven primarily by differences in the rates of high knowledge between groups. The majority of patients in both arms made values-concordant treatment decisions (78.6% in the intervention arm and 81.4% in the control arm). More patients in the intervention arm had high decision preparation (estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.34; P = .027), but there were no significant differences in the other decision appraisal outcomes. The effect of the intervention was similar for women who were leaning strongly toward a treatment option at enrollment compared with those who were not. Conclusion The tailored and interactive iCanDecide Web site, which focused on knowledge building and values clarification, positively affected high-quality decisions largely by improving knowledge compared with static online information. To be effective, future patient-facing decision tools should be integrated into the clinical workflow to improve decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Professor 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Psychology 6 7%
Engineering 5 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 28 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 238. 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 01 February 2020.
All research outputs
#158,079
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#278
of 22,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,667
of 450,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Oncology
#9
of 286 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 450,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 286 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.