Observational studyBMC medical ethics2026
From consultation to choice: gynecologic cancer patients' perspectives on shared decision making in clinical practice - findings from a cross-sectional observational qualitative interview study.
Observational study in BMC medical ethics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShared decision making (SDM) is a cornerstone of patient-centered care in oncology, yet its implementation remains inconsistent across clinical contexts. Particularly in gynecologic oncology, where treatment choices often carry profound implications for identity, fertility and quality of life, understanding how patients engage in SDM is crucial. Patient autonomy, understood as the capacity and right to participate meaningfully in medical decisions, is central to this process, yet remains complex and context-dependent.
objectiveThis study explores how women with gynecologic cancers experience decision making processes throughout the course of their treatment, with a focus on how their preferences, needs, and autonomy evolve over time.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative, single-center, cross-sectional observational study using grounded theory methodology. Semi-structured interviews were held once with 20 female patients undergoing treatment for various gynecologic malignancies at a university medical center. Interviews explored experiences across treatment phases initiation, maintenance, pending/abstention and anticipated decisions.
resultsParticipants expressed a wide range of attitudes toward decision making, shaped by emotional readiness, trust in clinicians, and interpersonal support. Early in treatment, many preferred clinician-led guidance due to emotional overload. Over time, some sought greater involvement, while others continued to delegate decisions. A minority of participants addressed treatment refusal or end-of-life decisions during interviews, often with ambivalence. Structural issues such as fragmented communication and lack of care continuity were cited as barriers to meaningful participation.
conclusionPatients’ preferences for involvement in decision making are dynamic and context dependent. Our findings support models of relational and temporal autonomy and highlight the importance of responsive communication, trust, and systemic support in fostering ethical and effective SDM.These insights call for enhanced clinician training and organizational strategies to integrate SDM meaningfully into routine cancer care.
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.