Effect of an Interdisciplinary Shared Decision-Making Intervention on Decisional Conflict in Advanced Cancer Patients Receiving Third-Line Therapy
NCT ID: NCT07164365
Last Updated: 2025-09-10
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
62 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2025-08-10
Study Completion Date
2026-04-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The study aims to evaluate whether an interdisciplinary intervention based on a shared decision-making model can reduce decisional conflict in patients with metastatic solid tumors (lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or ovarian cancer) who are indicated for third-line systemic treatment. Participants are randomized to receive either standard oncology consultation or an additional interdisciplinary consultation involving oncology, palliative care, and psychology. The intervention emphasizes providing information and support for treatment decisions.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Improving Personalized Treatment in Oncology: Effects of Integrated Oncological Decision-making
NCT07046884
Oncology
RECRUITING
NA
Improving Patient-Centered Communication in Breast Cancer Through Patient and Provider Interventions
NCT04549571
Anatomic Stage 0 Breast Cancer AJCC v8
Anatomic Stage I Breast Cancer AJCC v8
Anatomic Stage IA Breast Cancer AJCC v8
+19 more
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Decision Counseling Program in Increasing Shared Decision Making and Clinical Trial Participation in Patients With Stage 0-IV Lung Cancer (Free to Breathe)
NCT03820557
Lung Cancer
COMPLETED
NA
Randomized Clinical Trial of a Multi-Modal Palliative Care Intervention
NCT04773639
Depression, Anxiety
Metastatic Cancer
COMPLETED
NA
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in Improving Well-Being in Patients With Stage III-IV Cancer and Their Partners
NCT03112668
Malignant Female Reproductive System Neoplasm
Malignant Hepatobiliary Neoplasm
Partner
+36 more
COMPLETED
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
* Problem Statement: In Colombia, advanced cancer is common and treatment options become increasingly complex by the third line of therapy, often lacking standardized guidelines. This complexity, along with uncertainty about prognosis and treatment benefits, can lead to significant decisional conflict for patients.
* Objective: To determine whether a structured interdisciplinary intervention using shared decision-making reduces decisional conflict compared to standard care.
* Population: Adults (≥18 years) with metastatic lung, breast, colon, ovary, or prostate cancer at Hospital San Ignacio, eligible for third-line systemic therapy.
* Intervention: The intervention group receives an additional consultation involving a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and psychologist. The session follows six steps: inviting the patient to participate, describing options, detailing benefits and risks, clarifying patient goals, facilitating decision deliberation, and outlining next steps-all based on the shared decision-making model.
* Control Group: Receives standard oncology consultation only.
* Randomization: Assignment is done randomly and independently.
* Outcomes:
* Primary: Decisional conflict measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale.
* Secondary: Patient satisfaction, decision regret, perceptions of shared decision-making, symptom burden, and levels of neuroticism, all assessed with validated instruments.
* Sample Size: 62 participants (31 per group) are planned, allowing for potential losses.
* Follow-up: Patients are assessed immediately after intervention/consultation and again at three months.
* Analysis: Data will be analyzed by intention-to-treat, using quantitative scales, and adjusting for confounding factors. Subgroup analyses by demographic and clinical characteristics are planned.
Overall, the study is designed to inform best practices on supporting advanced cancer patients in complex treatment decisions, exploring the effects of an interdisciplinary, patient-centered intervention on decisional conflict and related outcomes.
* Objective: To determine whether a structured interdisciplinary intervention using shared decision-making reduces decisional conflict compared to standard care.
* Population: Adults (≥18 years) with metastatic lung, breast, colon, ovary, or prostate cancer at Hospital San Ignacio, eligible for third-line systemic therapy.
* Intervention: The intervention group receives an additional consultation involving a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and psychologist. The session follows six steps: inviting the patient to participate, describing options, detailing benefits and risks, clarifying patient goals, facilitating decision deliberation, and outlining next steps-all based on the shared decision-making model.
* Control Group: Receives standard oncology consultation only.
* Randomization: Assignment is done randomly and independently.
* Outcomes:
* Primary: Decisional conflict measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale.
* Secondary: Patient satisfaction, decision regret, perceptions of shared decision-making, symptom burden, and levels of neuroticism, all assessed with validated instruments.
* Sample Size: 62 participants (31 per group) are planned, allowing for potential losses.
* Follow-up: Patients are assessed immediately after intervention/consultation and again at three months.
* Analysis: Data will be analyzed by intention-to-treat, using quantitative scales, and adjusting for confounding factors. Subgroup analyses by demographic and clinical characteristics are planned.
Overall, the study is designed to inform best practices on supporting advanced cancer patients in complex treatment decisions, exploring the effects of an interdisciplinary, patient-centered intervention on decisional conflict and related outcomes.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Decisional Conflict, Advanced/Metastatic Solid Tumors, Shared Decision-making
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Randomized clinical trial; parallel two-arm design (intervention and control)
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Intervention Arm: Interdisciplinary shared decision-making consultation
Interdisciplinary shared decision-making consultation (with oncologist, palliative care physician, psychologist) following a six-step shared decision-making process.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
Interdisciplinary Shared Decision-Making Consultation
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
One additional face-to-face consultation with a team (oncologist, palliative care, psychologist), following a six-step shared decision-making process.
Control arm
Standard oncology consultation
Group Type
NO_INTERVENTION
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Interdisciplinary Shared Decision-Making Consultation
One additional face-to-face consultation with a team (oncologist, palliative care, psychologist), following a six-step shared decision-making process.
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Age ≥18 years
* Diagnosed with metastatic lung, breast, colon, ovary, or prostate cancer
* Have completed two prior lines of systemic therapy
* Indication for third-line systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or hormone therapy)
* Under follow-up at Hospital San Ignacio
* Capacity to provide informed consent
* Diagnosed with metastatic lung, breast, colon, ovary, or prostate cancer
* Have completed two prior lines of systemic therapy
* Indication for third-line systemic therapy (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or hormone therapy)
* Under follow-up at Hospital San Ignacio
* Capacity to provide informed consent
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Hospital Universitario San Ignacio
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Hospital Universitario San Ignacio
Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Colombia
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Ministerio de salud. Resolución 8430 de 1993. 1993. p. 1-19
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ben-Porath YS, Hosteller K, Butcher JN, Graham JR, Ben-Porath S. New Subscales for the MMPI-2 Social Introversion (Si) Scale. Vol. l, Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1989
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Jiménez OR. Interpretación clínica y psicodinámica del MMP1: inventario multifásico de la personalidad de Minnesota. Diana. 1987;
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Trull TJ, David Useda J, Costa PT, Mccrae RR. Comparison of the MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and the NEO-PI-R. Psychological Assessment. 1995
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Harkness AR, Mcnulty JL, Ben-Porath YS. The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) : Constructs and MMPI-2 Scales. Vol. 7, Psychological Assessment. 1995
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gordon RM, Stoffey RW, Perkins BL. Comparing the Sensitivity of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales and the MMPI-RC Scales to Clients Rated as Psychotic, Borderline or Neurotic on the Psychodiagnostic Chart. Psychology. 2013;04(09):12-6.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Butcher JN, Graham JR, Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A, Dahlstrom WG, Kaemmer B, et al. MMPI®-2 Inventario Multifásico de Personalidad de Minnesota®-2 Comité de tipificación del MMPI ®-2: Adaptación española: Manual. 2019
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Carvajal A, Centeno C, Watson R, Bruera E. A comprehensive study of psychometric properties of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) in Spanish advanced cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2011 Aug;47(12):1863-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.03.027. Epub 2011 Apr 22.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Aktas A, Walsh D, Kirkova J. The psychometric properties of cancer multisymptom assessment instruments: a clinical review. Support Care Cancer. 2015 Jul;23(7):2189-202. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2732-7. Epub 2015 Apr 19.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Nekolaichuk C, Watanabe S, Beaumont C. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: a 15-year retrospective review of validation studies (1991--2006). Palliat Med. 2008 Mar;22(2):111-22. doi: 10.1177/0269216307087659.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M. Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Cancer. 2000 May 1;88(9):2164-71. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(20000501)88:93.0.co;2-5.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Llanos Zavalaga F, Rosas Aguirre A, Mendoza Requena D, Contreras Ríos C. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia. Rev Med Hered. 2001;12(2):52-7
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Floriano N, Aranda R, Manuel J, González R, Maribel A, Rodríguez A, et al. Validación de Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) en español Revista Clínica de. Medicina de Familia (Internet). 2020;13(3):190-7. Available from: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=169664978003
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
De las Cuevas C, Perestelo-Perez L, Rivero-Santana A, Cebolla-Marti A, Scholl I, Harter M. Validation of the Spanish version of the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire. Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2143-53. doi: 10.1111/hex.12183. Epub 2014 Mar 5.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Sep;49(5):651-61. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00145-8.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Urrutia M, Campos S, O'Connor A. [Validation of a Spanish version of the Decisional Conflict scale]. Rev Med Chil. 2008 Nov;136(11):1439-47. doi: 10.4067/s0034-98872008001100010. Spanish.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Wang MM, Loh EW, Chou JF, Sung PM, Chou YY, Lin YK, Chen SF, Tam KW. Influence of Shared Decision Making on Decisional Conflict and Regret in Postpartum Mother-Infant Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Value Health. 2021 Sep;24(9):1335-1342. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.03.011. Epub 2021 May 3.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Niburski K, Guadagno E, Abbasgholizadeh-Rahimi S, Poenaru D. Shared Decision Making in Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Existing Literature. Patient. 2020 Dec;13(6):667-681. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00443-6.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Levy D, Dhillon HM, Lomax A, Marthick M, McNeil C, Kao S, Lacey J. Certainty within uncertainty: a qualitative study of the experience of metastatic melanoma patients undergoing pembrolizumab immunotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2019 May;27(5):1845-1852. doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4443-3. Epub 2018 Sep 4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Roccas S, Sagiv L, Schwartz SH, Knafo A. The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2002;28(6):789-801
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Komarraju M, Karau SJ, Schmeck RR, Avdic A. The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Pers Individ Dif. 2011 Sep;51(4):472-7
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Di Fabio A, Saklofske DH, Gori A, Svicher A. Perfectionism: A network analysis of relationships between the Big Three Perfectionism dimensions and the Big Five Personality traits. Pers Individ Dif. 2022 Dec 1;199
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Markon KE. Hierarchies in the Structure of Personality Traits. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2009 Sep;3(5):812-26
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Zuckerman M, Kuhlman DM, Joireman J, Teta P, Kraft M. A Comparison of Three Structural Models for Personality: The Big Three, the Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Vol. 65, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Barlow DH, Ellard KK, Sauer-Zavala S, Bullis JR, Carl JR. The Origins of Neuroticism. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014 Sep;9(5):481-96. doi: 10.1177/1745691614544528.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Roemer L, Salters K, Raffa SD, Orsillo SM. Fear and avoidance of internal experiences in GAD: Preliminary tests of a conceptual model. Vol. 29, Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2005. p. 71-88
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
McLaughlin KA, Mennin DS, Farach FJ. The contributory role of worry in emotion generation and dysregulation in generalized anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2007 Aug;45(8):1735-52. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2006.12.004. Epub 2006 Dec 28.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Watson D, Clark LA, Harkness AR. Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology. J Abnorm Psychol. 1994 Feb;103(1):18-31.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality in adulthood: A five- factor theory perspective. . 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2003
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Weiss A, Costa PT Jr. Domain and facet personality predictors of all-cause mortality among Medicare patients aged 65 to 100. Psychosom Med. 2005 Sep-Oct;67(5):724-33. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000181272.58103.18.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kates JM. Treatment-related Decisional Conflict, Quality of Life, and Comorbidity in Older Adults with Cancer. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2018 Oct-Dec;5(4):421-429. doi: 10.4103/apjon.apjon_32_18.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Baek SK, Kim SY, Heo DS, Yun YH, Lee MK. Effect of advanced cancer patients' awareness of disease status on treatment decisional conflicts and satisfaction during palliative chemotherapy: a Korean prospective cohort study. Support Care Cancer. 2012 Jun;20(6):1309-16. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1218-5. Epub 2011 Jul 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Baca-Dietz D, Wojnar DM, Espina CR. The shared decision-making model: Providers' and patients' knowledge and understanding in clinical practice. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2020 Jun 30;33(7):529-536. doi: 10.1097/JXX.0000000000000401.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Arch JJ, Bright EE, Finkelstein LB, Fink RM, Mitchell JL, Andorsky DJ, Kutner JS. Anxiety and Depression in Metastatic Cancer: A Critical Review of Negative Impacts on Advance Care Planning and End-of-Life Decision Making With Practical Recommendations. JCO Oncol Pract. 2023 Dec;19(12):1097-1108. doi: 10.1200/OP.23.00287. Epub 2023 Oct 13.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ter Stege JA, Oldenburg HSA, Woerdeman LAE, Witkamp AJ, Kieffer JM, van Huizum MA, van Duijnhoven FH, Hahn DEE, Gerritsma MA, Kuenen MA, Kimmings NAN, Ruhe QPQ, Krabbe-Timmerman IS, Riet MV, Corten EML, Sherman KA, Bleiker EMA. Decisional conflict in breast cancer patients considering immediate breast reconstruction. Breast. 2021 Feb;55:91-97. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.12.001. Epub 2020 Dec 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Calderon C, Ferrando PJ, Lorenzo-Seva U, Higuera O, Ramon Y Cajal T, Rogado J, Mut-Lloret M, Rodriguez-Capote A, Jara C, Jimenez-Fonseca P. Validity and Reliability of the Decision Regret Scale in Cancer Patients Receiving Adjuvant Chemotherapy. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Apr;57(4):828-834. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.11.017. Epub 2019 Jan 11.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gilovich T, Medvec VH. The experience of regret: what, when, and why. Psychol Rev. 1995 Apr;102(2):379-95. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.379.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hotta K, Kiura K, Takigawa N, Yoshioka H, Hayashi H, Fukuyama H, Nishiyama A, Yokoyama T, Kuyama S, Umemura S, Kato Y, Nogami N, Segawa Y, Yasugi M, Tabata M, Tanimoto M. Desire for information and involvement in treatment decisions: lung cancer patients' preferences and their physicians' perceptions: results from Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group Trial 0705. J Thorac Oncol. 2010 Oct;5(10):1668-72. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181f1c8cb.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Mallinger JB, Shields CG, Griggs JJ, Roscoe JA, Morrow GR, Rosenbluth RJ, Lord RS, Gross H. Stability of decisional role preference over the course of cancer therapy. Psychooncology. 2006 Apr;15(4):297-305. doi: 10.1002/pon.954.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ankolekar A, De Ruysscher D, Reymen B, Houben R, Dekker A, Roumen C, Fijten R. Shared decision-making for prophylactic cranial irradiation in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: an exploratory study. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021 Jul;10(7):3120-3131. doi: 10.21037/tlcr-21-175.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Pecanac KE, Brown RL, Steingrub J, Anderson W, Matthay MA, White DB. A psychometric study of the decisional conflict scale in surrogate decision makers. Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Nov;101(11):1957-1965. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.07.006. Epub 2018 Jul 7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Coronado-Vazquez V, Canet-Fajas C, Delgado-Marroquin MT, Magallon-Botaya R, Romero-Martin M, Gomez-Salgado J. Interventions to facilitate shared decision-making using decision aids with patients in Primary Health Care: A systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Aug 7;99(32):e21389. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021389.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Jeon BM, Kim SH, Lee SJ. Decisional conflict in end-of-life cancer treatment among family surrogates: A cross-sectional survey. Nurs Health Sci. 2018 Dec;20(4):472-478. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12537. Epub 2018 Jun 19.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lenz ER, Pugh LC. Middle range theory for nursing. 3rd ed. Smith Mary Jane, Liehr Patricia R., editors. NewYork: Springer; 2014. 95-165 p
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992 Apr 22-29;267(16):2221-6. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kane HL, Halpern MT, Squiers LB, Treiman KA, McCormack LA. Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014 Nov-Dec;64(6):377-88. doi: 10.3322/caac.21245. Epub 2014 Sep 8.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Laidsaar-Powell R, Butow P, Bu S, Charles C, Gafni A, Fisher A, Juraskova I. Family involvement in cancer treatment decision-making: A qualitative study of patient, family, and clinician attitudes and experiences. Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jul;99(7):1146-1155. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.014. Epub 2016 Jan 28.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gennari A, Andre F, Barrios CH, Cortes J, de Azambuja E, DeMichele A, Dent R, Fenlon D, Gligorov J, Hurvitz SA, Im SA, Krug D, Kunz WG, Loi S, Penault-Llorca F, Ricke J, Robson M, Rugo HS, Saura C, Schmid P, Singer CF, Spanic T, Tolaney SM, Turner NC, Curigliano G, Loibl S, Paluch-Shimon S, Harbeck N; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: [email protected]. ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2021 Dec;32(12):1475-1495. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.09.019. Epub 2021 Oct 19. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lowrance WT, Breau RH, Chou R, Chapin BF, Crispino T, Dreicer R, Jarrard DF, Kibel AS, Morgan TM, Morgans AK, Oh WK, Resnick MJ, Zietman AL, Cookson MS. Advanced Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline PART II. J Urol. 2021 Jan;205(1):22-29. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001376. Epub 2020 Sep 22.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Gonzalez Del Alba A, Mendez-Vidal MJ, Vazquez S, Castro E, Climent MA, Gallardo E, Gonzalez-Billalabeitia E, Lorente D, Maroto JP, Arranz JA. SEOM clinical guidelines for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer (2020). Clin Transl Oncol. 2021 May;23(5):969-979. doi: 10.1007/s12094-021-02561-5. Epub 2021 Feb 24.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Garvelink MM, Boland L, Klein K, Nguyen DV, Menear M, Bekker HL, Eden KB, LeBlanc A, O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Legare F. Decisional Conflict Scale Use over 20 Years: The Anniversary Review. Med Decis Making. 2019 May;39(4):301-314. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19851345. Epub 2019 May 29.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lee YH, Chou XY, Lai YH, Liang YH, Hung CT, Hsaio CC, Gao ZX. Decisional conflict and its determinants among patients with cancer undergoing immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy or targeted therapy: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2023 Aug 5;13(1):12715. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-39280-6.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
van Steenhoven JEC, den Dekker BM, Kuijer A, van Diest PJ, Nieboer P, Zuetenhorst JM, Imholz ALT, Siesling S, van Dalen T. Patients' perceptions of 70-gene signature testing: commonly changing the initial inclination to undergo or forego chemotherapy and reducing decisional conflict. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020 Jul;182(1):107-115. doi: 10.1007/s10549-020-05683-6. Epub 2020 May 19.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hoesseini A, Dorr MC, Dronkers EAC, de Jong RJB, Sewnaik A, Offerman MPJ. Decisional Conflict in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Feb 1;149(2):160-167. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.4269.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ribi K, Kalbermatten N, Eicher M, Strasser F. Towards a novel approach guiding the decision-making process for anticancer treatment in patients with advanced cancer: framework for systemic anticancer treatment with palliative intent. ESMO Open. 2022 Jun;7(3):100496. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100496. Epub 2022 May 18.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Fondo Colombiano de Enfermedades de Alto Costo. Situación del cáncer en la población adulta atendida en el SGSSS de Colombia 2022. Bogotá: Cuenta de Alto Costo (CAC); 2023. 58 p.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ferlay J, Bray F, Soerjomataram I, Znaor A, Ervik M, Lam F, et al. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2024 (cited 2024 Sep 7). Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Saini KS, Twelves C. Determining lines of therapy in patients with solid cancers: a proposed new systematic and comprehensive framework. Br J Cancer. 2021 Jul;125(2):155-163. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01319-8. Epub 2021 Apr 13.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
FM-CIE-0357-25
Identifier Type: OTHER
Identifier Source: secondary_id
FM-CIE-0357-25
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Shared Decision Making on Care Pathways and CAMs: A Pilot Study
NCT05388734
UNKNOWN
NA
Second Opinions in Oncology
NCT05102500
COMPLETED
Evaluating the Effects of Psycho-oncological Education on Distress and Quality of Life in Solid Tumor Cancer Patients
NCT02370836
COMPLETED
NA
DISCOVERY: Evaluating a Decision Support Tool for Adults Seen in Hematology/Oncology Clinics
NCT06296368
RECRUITING
NA
Online Trial Examining Validity and Reliability of the Shared Decision Making Process Survey
NCT04317690
COMPLETED
Dignity Therapy in mCRC to Increase Peaceful Awareness & Impact Goals of Care Decision-Making
NCT01074385
COMPLETED
NA
Decision Aid Website in Helping to Make Decisions About Fertility in Participants With Cancer
NCT03141437
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Evaluating the Shared Decision Making Process Scale in Cancer Screening Decisions
NCT04601272
COMPLETED
Sharing Decision-making Program for HCC Patients Treatment Decisions
NCT03926039
COMPLETED
NA
Increasing Patients' Engagement in Breast Cancer Surgery Decision-Making
NCT03766009
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Decision Making Tool in Supporting Decision Making in Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer
NCT02918474
RECRUITING
NA
Intervention to Increase Chemotherapy Tolerance in Elderly Cancer Patients
NCT01586416
UNKNOWN
NA
Enhancing Shared Decision-Making in Metastatic Breast Cancer (Qualitative Study)
NCT03248258
COMPLETED
Cognitive-Behavioral Stress Management Device for the Treatment of Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Patients With Stage I-III Breast or Lung Cancer
NCT04705025
TERMINATED
NA
A Pilot Study of Geriatric Specific Interventions for Quality of Life in Elderly Patients With Cancer
NCT00984321
COMPLETED
NA
Study of Decision Making in Patients Participating in Phase I Clinical Trials
NCT00054223
COMPLETED
NA
Online Psychosocial Intervention in Improving Social Well-Being and Support in Women With Stage I-IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Undergoing Treatment
NCT03731585
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
Psychotherapy Intervention for Latinos With Advanced Cancer
NCT04015609
RECRUITING
NA
Psychotherapy Intervention for Latinos With Adv Cancer
NCT04537936
RECRUITING
NA
Early Incorporation of Patient and Family to Attention and Care Program in Oncology Versus Standard of Care
NCT01631565
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Cancer Care
NCT03393351
COMPLETED
NA
Patient Empowerment and Risk-assessed Treatment to Improve Outcome in the Elderly After Onco-surgery
NCT01278537
COMPLETED
NA
Printed Education Materials in Patients Who Are Finishing Treatment for Stage I, Stage II, or Stage IIIA Breast Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Prostate Cancer, or Chest Cancer
NCT00372840
COMPLETED
NA