ArticleMDM policy & practice
Evaluating the Impact of VOICE (Values and Outcomes to Improve Cancer Experiences), a Values-Clarification Tool, among Older Adults with Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Study in Simulated Clinical Settings.
Article in MDM policy & practice. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients often report that clinical guidance does not reflect personal values, such as balancing survival with quality of life. Values-clarification tools can improve treatment alignment but have been understudied. Objective: To evaluate the impact of the Values and Outcomes to Improve Cancer Experiences (VOICE) tool on values clarification and shared decision making (SDM) in simulated encounters. Methods: Adults (age ≥60 y) with advanced cancer were randomized to receive VOICE or an American Cancer Society (ACS) communication guide. Participants completed 2 simulated decision-making encounters in randomized order, values based (VB; clinician-initiated discussion of patient values) and non-values based (NVB; values addressed only if patient initiates), with medical students. Two independent raters assessed values‑clarification and SDM behaviors (interrater reliability = 0.82). Patient-reported SDM was assessed with validated measures. Postsimulation interviews were thematically analyzed. Results: Forty-four adults (aged 60-88 y) participated in 88 simulated encounters focused on discussing a secondary cancer diagnosis and treatment options. VOICE recipients demonstrated higher rater-assessed values clarification than those receiving the ACS guide in VB (91.5 vs 80.1, Conclusions: In this randomized simulation study, VOICE improved older adults' preparation for values-based discussions and supported reflection on how treatment options align with what matters most to them. Findings highlight the importance of pairing values-clarification tools with clinician-initiated values-based discussions and for further evaluation in real-world settings.
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.