Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22837144›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2012

Perceived and objective breast cancer risk assessment in Chilean women living in an underserved area.

Matthew P Banegas, Klaus Püschel, Javiera Martínez-Gutiérrez, Jennifer C Anderson, Beti Thompson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Causal Attribution of Breast Cancer by Survivors in French West Indies.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matthew P BanegasSchool of Public Health, Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. banegasmp@mail.nih.gov
Klaus Püschel
Javiera Martínez-Gutiérrez
Jennifer C Anderson
Beti Thompson

Funding

Research Education About Cancer and Health (REACH) CoreU54CA132381 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI KAREN R PETERSON · 2007 to 2026
$25.3M
Undergraduate Student Training in Cancer ResearchU54CA132383 · NCI · NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY LAS CRUCES · PI MICHELE Irene SHUSTER · 2007 to 2026
$21.4M
Understanding and preventing breast cancer disparties in LatinasP50CA148143 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI THOMPSON, BETI · 2010 to 2016
$9.7M
Improving Breast Cancer Screening at the Primary Care LevelR03TW007900 · FIC · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI THOMPSON, BETI · 2007 to 2009
$114k
FIC NIH HHS R03 TW007900NCI NIH HHS 5 P50 CA148143NCI NIH HHS P50 CA148143NCI NIH HHS U54 CA132381NCI NIH HHS U54 CA132383
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy among Chilean women and an increasingly significant public health threat. This study assessed the accuracy of breast cancer risk perception among underserved, Chilean women.

methodsWomen aged 50 to 70 years, with no mammogram during the last 2 years, were randomly selected from a community clinic registry in Santiago, Chile (n = 500). Perceived risk was measured using three methods: absolute risk, comparative risk, and numerical risk. Risk comprehension was measured by comparing women's perceived and objective risk estimates. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess overestimation of perceived risk.

resultsWomen at high risk of breast cancer were more likely than average risk women to perceive themselves at high or higher risk, using absolute and comparative risk approaches (P < 0.001). The majority of participants (67%) overestimated their breast cancer risk, on the basis of risk comprehension; although, participants achieved higher accuracy with comparative risk (40%) and absolute risk (31.6%) methods. [Age, breast cancer knowledge and Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) 5-year risk were significantly associated (P < 0.01) with accuracy of perceived risk].

conclusionChilean women residing in an underserved community may not accurately assess their breast cancer risk, although risk perception and level of accuracy differed between perceived risk measures. Comparative and absolute risk methods may better reflect women's interpretation and accuracy of risk perception. IMPACT: Improving our understanding of Chilean women's perceptions of developing breast cancer may lead to the development of culturally relevant efforts to reduce the breast cancer burden in this population.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentAgedBreast NeoplasmsChileFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID22837144
PMCPMC3467315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.