ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Decision Conflict Faced by First-Degree Relatives of Liver Cancer Patients in Liver Cancer Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study in China.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the level of decision conflict regarding liver cancer screening among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of liver cancer patients, and to explore its associations with decision preparation, social support, and health literacy management. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled 172 FDRs of liver cancer patients from a tertiary general hospital in Chongqing, China. Data was collected using the General Information Survey, the Decision Conflict Scale, the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale, the Perceived Social Support Scale, and the Health Literacy Management Scale. Descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson correlation analysis, and multivariate regression analysis were performed to identify factors influencing decision conflict. Results: The total score of decision conflict was 33.37 (SD = 13.38). Specifically, 40.11% of participants (n = 69) reported clinically significant decision conflict (score ≥ 37.5), and an additional 36.63% (n = 63) reported scores between 25 and 37.5, indicating a tendency toward decisional delay. Multiple linear regression analysis identified the educational level of FDRs and prior liver cancer screening experience as significant determinants. Higher decision conflict scores were associated with lower decision preparation (β = -0.562, P < 0.001), lower social support (β = -0.580, P < 0.001), and lower health literacy management (β = -0.232, P = 0.023). The model accounted for 71.6% of the total variance. Conclusion: FDRs of liver cancer patients experience moderate decision conflict regarding liver cancer screening. To address this issue, the development of structured decision aids incorporating liver cancer screening education and clear risk-benefit information is recommended. Interventions should prioritize enhancing patients' understanding and preparedness for decision making, particularly among individuals with lower educational attainment or no prior screening experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.