↓ Skip to main content

Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Process quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer team meetings: a structured observational study
Published in
BMC Cancer, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3768-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pola Hahlweg, Sarah Didi, Levente Kriston, Martin Härter, Yvonne Nestoriuc, Isabelle Scholl

Abstract

The quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation. An adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis. N = 249 cases were observed in N = 29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation. The quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Other 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Psychology 8 12%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 12 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,520,861
of 12,167,359 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,499
of 4,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,967
of 336,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#71
of 276 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,167,359 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,452 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 336,163 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 276 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.