Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

BibTeX

@article{c1ae426aa32e45a691d423c2e868f377,
title = "Erratum to: Effect of a Skills Training for Oncologists and a Patient Communication Aid on Shared Decision Making About Palliative Systemic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial (The Oncologist, (2020), 25, 3, 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0453)",
abstract = "The Oncologist 2020;25:e578–e588; first published on November 26, 2019; doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0453 The authors regret that there is an error in the results reflecting the effect of the interventions on patient-reported decisional conflict post-consultation. We used the Dutch version of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) as translated and validated by Koedoot and colleagues in 2001 [1]. This Dutch version was based on the DCS published in 1995 [2]; however, this version appears different from the version presented in the current manual of the DCS, first published in 1993 but updated in 2010 [3]. The item content is comparable, yet the version we used contains five items that need to be reverse coded. We calculated sum scores in accordance with the current manual and, hence, did not reverse code any of the items. This resulted in incorrect sum scores. The corrected results are presented in Tables 2 and 3, shown here and corresponding to the numbered tables in the original article. On page e584 of the original article, the correct figures should be described as follows: Condition did not affect patients{\textquoteright} decisional conflict (F(3,145) = 1.99, p =.12). 2 Table Raw means with standard deviations of decisional conflict for total sample and each condition (Table presented.) a Patients were instructed to skip the items of the Decisional Conflict Scale if, in their view, a decision was not or not yet made (n = 23 patients skipped all or > 2 items of the scale). 3 Table Bootstrapped parameter estimates and 95% CIs of the fixed effects in the Mixed Linear Model (Table presented.) a Difference in estimated marginal means ({\textquoteleft}no training, no aid{\textquoteright} concerns the comparison group) divided by the pooled standard deviation calculated from the standard errors √(((se1 * √n1)2 * (n1-1) + (se2 * √n2)2 * (n2-1)/(n1+n2-2)). The corrected results did not affect any of the conclusions of our study. Nevertheless, the authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. References 1. Koedoot N, Molenaar S, Oosterveld P et al. The decisional conflict scale: Further validation in two samples of Dutch oncology patients. Patient Educ Couns 2001;45:187-193. 2. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995;15:25-30. 3. O'Connor AM. User manual Decisional Conflict Scale 2010. Available from https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_decisional_conflict.pdf.",
author = "Inge Henselmans and {van Laarhoven}, {Hanneke W. M.} and {van Maarschalkerweerd}, Pomme and {de Haes}, {Hanneke C. J. M.} and Dijkgraaf, {Marcel G. W.} and Sommeijer, {Dirkje W.} and Ottevanger, {Petronella B.} and Helle-Brit Fiebrich and Serge Dohmen and Geert-Jan Creemers and {de Vos}, {Filip Y. F. L.} and Smets, {Ellen M. A.}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 AlphaMed Press.",
year = "2021",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1002/onco.13984",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "e2309",
journal = "oncologist",
issn = "1083-7159",
publisher = "AlphaMed Press",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Erratum to

T2 - Effect of a Skills Training for Oncologists and a Patient Communication Aid on Shared Decision Making About Palliative Systemic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial (The Oncologist, (2020), 25, 3, 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0453)

AU - Henselmans, Inge

AU - van Laarhoven, Hanneke W. M.

AU - van Maarschalkerweerd, Pomme

AU - de Haes, Hanneke C. J. M.

AU - Dijkgraaf, Marcel G. W.

AU - Sommeijer, Dirkje W.

AU - Ottevanger, Petronella B.

AU - Fiebrich, Helle-Brit

AU - Dohmen, Serge

AU - Creemers, Geert-Jan

AU - de Vos, Filip Y. F. L.

AU - Smets, Ellen M. A.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021 AlphaMed Press.

PY - 2021/12

Y1 - 2021/12

N2 - The Oncologist 2020;25:e578–e588; first published on November 26, 2019; doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0453 The authors regret that there is an error in the results reflecting the effect of the interventions on patient-reported decisional conflict post-consultation. We used the Dutch version of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) as translated and validated by Koedoot and colleagues in 2001 [1]. This Dutch version was based on the DCS published in 1995 [2]; however, this version appears different from the version presented in the current manual of the DCS, first published in 1993 but updated in 2010 [3]. The item content is comparable, yet the version we used contains five items that need to be reverse coded. We calculated sum scores in accordance with the current manual and, hence, did not reverse code any of the items. This resulted in incorrect sum scores. The corrected results are presented in Tables 2 and 3, shown here and corresponding to the numbered tables in the original article. On page e584 of the original article, the correct figures should be described as follows: Condition did not affect patients’ decisional conflict (F(3,145) = 1.99, p =.12). 2 Table Raw means with standard deviations of decisional conflict for total sample and each condition (Table presented.) a Patients were instructed to skip the items of the Decisional Conflict Scale if, in their view, a decision was not or not yet made (n = 23 patients skipped all or > 2 items of the scale). 3 Table Bootstrapped parameter estimates and 95% CIs of the fixed effects in the Mixed Linear Model (Table presented.) a Difference in estimated marginal means (‘no training, no aid’ concerns the comparison group) divided by the pooled standard deviation calculated from the standard errors √(((se1 * √n1)2 * (n1-1) + (se2 * √n2)2 * (n2-1)/(n1+n2-2)). The corrected results did not affect any of the conclusions of our study. Nevertheless, the authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. References 1. Koedoot N, Molenaar S, Oosterveld P et al. The decisional conflict scale: Further validation in two samples of Dutch oncology patients. Patient Educ Couns 2001;45:187-193. 2. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995;15:25-30. 3. O'Connor AM. User manual Decisional Conflict Scale 2010. Available from https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_decisional_conflict.pdf.

AB - The Oncologist 2020;25:e578–e588; first published on November 26, 2019; doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0453 The authors regret that there is an error in the results reflecting the effect of the interventions on patient-reported decisional conflict post-consultation. We used the Dutch version of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) as translated and validated by Koedoot and colleagues in 2001 [1]. This Dutch version was based on the DCS published in 1995 [2]; however, this version appears different from the version presented in the current manual of the DCS, first published in 1993 but updated in 2010 [3]. The item content is comparable, yet the version we used contains five items that need to be reverse coded. We calculated sum scores in accordance with the current manual and, hence, did not reverse code any of the items. This resulted in incorrect sum scores. The corrected results are presented in Tables 2 and 3, shown here and corresponding to the numbered tables in the original article. On page e584 of the original article, the correct figures should be described as follows: Condition did not affect patients’ decisional conflict (F(3,145) = 1.99, p =.12). 2 Table Raw means with standard deviations of decisional conflict for total sample and each condition (Table presented.) a Patients were instructed to skip the items of the Decisional Conflict Scale if, in their view, a decision was not or not yet made (n = 23 patients skipped all or > 2 items of the scale). 3 Table Bootstrapped parameter estimates and 95% CIs of the fixed effects in the Mixed Linear Model (Table presented.) a Difference in estimated marginal means (‘no training, no aid’ concerns the comparison group) divided by the pooled standard deviation calculated from the standard errors √(((se1 * √n1)2 * (n1-1) + (se2 * √n2)2 * (n2-1)/(n1+n2-2)). The corrected results did not affect any of the conclusions of our study. Nevertheless, the authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. References 1. Koedoot N, Molenaar S, Oosterveld P et al. The decisional conflict scale: Further validation in two samples of Dutch oncology patients. Patient Educ Couns 2001;45:187-193. 2. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995;15:25-30. 3. O'Connor AM. User manual Decisional Conflict Scale 2010. Available from https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_decisional_conflict.pdf.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117311037&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/onco.13984

DO - 10.1002/onco.13984

M3 - Comment/Letter to the editor

VL - 26

SP - e2309

JO - oncologist

JF - oncologist

SN - 1083-7159

IS - 12

ER -

ID: 20390388