ArticleEJHaem2026
A Survey Study of Patient-Physician Communication and Treatment Decision-Making Preference at Treatment Initiation and After Disease Stabilization in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.
Article in EJHaem, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We present real-world evidence of patient-physician communication for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who have not received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Methods: An observational survey study was conducted in Japan (September‒November 2024). Patients with NDMM completed a self-reported 34-item survey (online or paper-based), and hematologists treating patients with multiple myeloma completed a self-reported 18-item survey online. Communication status between patients and physicians and information on patients' treatment expectations, values, emotions, knowledge, and treatment decision-making preferences at both treatment initiation and disease stabilization were summarized. Results: Overall, 220 patients and 120 physicians were included. At both treatment initiation and disease stabilization, 45.9% and 50.3% of patients, respectively, had treatment options presented or explained to them, and 23.6% and 25.2%, respectively, were asked about their preferences; conversely, 82.5% and 65.0% of physicians, respectively, presented or explained treatment options to patients, and 67.5% and 50.8%, respectively, asked patients about their preferences. Patients' emotions shifted from negative to positive, their knowledge of the disease and treatment increased, and their treatment expectations changed from treatment initiation to disease stabilization. Overall, 44.5% of patients preferred a shared role in decision-making; however, only 21.8% had a shared role in actual practice at treatment initiation. Conclusion: There was a discrepancy in perceptions of communication between patients and physicians. Patients' expectations, emotions, and knowledge changed from treatment initiation to disease stabilization. Physicians should understand these changes and communicate more effectively about treatment options and plans at both treatment initiation and disease stabilization.
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.