ArticleBMC family practice2013
Improving the management of people with a family history of breast cancer in primary care: before and after study of audit-based education.
Article in BMC family practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of Cancer-Related Clinical Coding in Primary Care in North Central London: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Project.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Family history recording in UK general practice: the lIFeLONG study.Family practice · 2022Article
- The Effect of Telephone Counseling and Education on Breast Cancer Screening in Family Caregivers of Breast Cancer Patients.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2017Article
- Family history in breast cancer in São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil.BMC research notes · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn England, guidance from National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) states women with a family history of breast cancer presenting to primary care should be reassured or referred.We reviewed the evidence for interventions that might be applied in primary care and conducted an audit of whether low risk women are correctly advised and flagged.
methodsWe conducted a literature review to identify modifiable risk factors. We extracted routinely collected data from the computerised medical record systems of 6 general practices (population approximately 30,000); of the variables identified in the guidance. We implemented a quality improvement (QI) intervention called audit-based education (ABE) comparing participant practices with guidelines and each other before and after; we report odds ratios (OR) of any change in data recording.
resultsThe review revealed evidence for advising on: diet, weight control, physical exercise, and alcohol. The proportion of patients with recordings of family history of: disease, neoplasms, and breast cancer were: 39.3%, 5.1% and 1.3% respectively. There was no significant change in the recording of family history of disease or cancer; OR 1.02 (95% CI 0.98-1.06); and 1.08 (95% CI 0.99-1.17) respectively. Recording of alcohol consumption and smoking both increased significantly; OR 1.36 (95% CI 1.30-1.43); and 1.42 (95% CI 1.27-1.60) respectively. Recording lifestyle advice fell; OR 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.88).
conclusionsThe study informs about current data recording and willingness to engage in ABE. Recording of risk factors improved after the intervention. Further QI is needed to achieve adherence to current guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.