2023
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074853
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

(Cost-)effectiveness of an individualised risk prediction tool (PERSARC) on patient’s knowledge and decisional conflict among soft-tissue sarcomas patients: protocol for a parallel cluster randomised trial (the VALUE-PERSARC study)

Anouk A Kruiswijk,
Michiel A J van de Sande,
Rick L Haas
et al.

Abstract: IntroductionCurrent treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 53 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The data used in this study were gathered during the VALUE-PERSARC trial, which has been described previously [16]. In short, the VALUE-PERSARC trial is a multicenter parallel cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the impact of the use of a riskprediction model (PERSARC) during clinical decision making on knowledge and decisional conflict among eSTS patients.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data used in this study were gathered during the VALUE-PERSARC trial, which has been described previously [16]. In short, the VALUE-PERSARC trial is a multicenter parallel cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the impact of the use of a riskprediction model (PERSARC) during clinical decision making on knowledge and decisional conflict among eSTS patients.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%