Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23568405›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2013

Predictors of risk-based medical follow-up: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Jeanne R Steele, Melanie Wall, Nicholas Salkowski, Pauline Mitby, Toana Kawashima, Mark W Yeazel, Melissa M Hudson, Leslie L Robison, Ann C Mertens

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Jeanne R SteeleOffice of Statewide Health Improvement Initiatives, Minnesota Dept. of Health, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Melanie Wall
Nicholas Salkowski
Pauline Mitby
Toana Kawashima
Mark W Yeazel
Melissa M Hudson
Leslie L Robison
Ann C Mertens
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital · USUniversity of Minnesota · USChildren's Minnesota · USColumbia University · USEmory University · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USMinnesota Department of Health · US

Funding

Mach-LETSGO: Machine-LEarning of Treatment, Survey, and Genetics towards Obtaining Correct Classification of Chronic Conditions in Adult Survivors in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study - CCSS SupplU24CA055727 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Gregory Armstrong · 1999 to 2026
$96.7M
NCI NIH HHS U24 CA055727NCI NIH HHS U24 CA55727
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to conduct an intervention study designed to assess the effectiveness of using a newsletter to increase medical follow-up in pediatric cancer survivors at risk of selected treatment complications.

methodsSurvivors participating in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study who were at least 25 years of age and at risk of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, or osteoporosis related to previous cancer treatment were randomly assigned to receive a newsletter featuring brief health risk information or a newsletter including an insert providing more comprehensive health risk information. A follow-up survey distributed 24 months after the newsletter intervention assessed predictors of medical follow-up.

resultsOverall, there were no differences found among the groups in terms of access to a treatment summary, medical follow-up, discussion of childhood cancer health risks, and medical screening for the targeted health behaviors. One exception, indicating borderline significance was that women at risk for osteoporosis who received the newsletter insert were more likely to have discussed their risk with a doctor than those who only received the brief information (10.1 % vs. 4.0 % p = 0.05). Discussion of breast cancer (OR = 2.15; 95 % CI = 1.74-2.66), heart disease (OR = 5.54; 95 % CI = 4.67-6.57) and osteoporosis (OR = 10.6; 95 % CI = 8.34-13.47) risk with physician significantly predicted report of undergoing screening for targeted behavior in previous 2 years as did physician access to treatment summary.

conclusionsMore detailed content in a newsletter had minimal effect on recommended screening. However, survivor's discussion of cancer-related risks with one's doctor significantly influenced participation in health screening. These results highlight the integral role of communication in health behavior. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study is designed to assess communication strategies that increase medical follow-up in pediatric cancer survivors at risk of selected treatment complications. The results are of great importance not only to the pediatric oncology community but also the broad range of adult oncology medical specialties who are directly involved in the long-term medical care of this ever increasing population of cancer survivors.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareSurvivorsAdultAge of OnsetAntineoplastic ProtocolsCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleNeoplasmsNeoplasms, Second PrimaryOsteoporosisPatient Education as TopicPrognosisRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID23568405
PMCPMC3737257
OpenAlexW1994108858

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.