Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24312584›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Insecurities of women regarding breast cancer research: a qualitative study.

Marion Habersack, Gero Luschin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Marion HabersackOffice of the Vice Rector for Teaching and Studies, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Gero Luschin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOnly 1.2%-11% of all potential study participants participate in cancer studies. Low participation rates can result in bias or in a failure to obtain data saturation. Subject-scientific psychology assumes that reasons for acting are based on individual premises. The objective of this study was to render reproducible individual reasons of female breast cancer patients to participate or not participate in breast cancer studies using a qualitative approach.

methodsProblem-based interviews were conducted with female breast cancer patients. The selection of interview partners continued until theoretical data saturation was achieved.

resultsAs main arguments against participation emotional overload and too many medication side-effects were stated. Improvement of health-related values, long-term protection and comprehensive follow-up exams were stated as arguments for participation. Trust in the attending physician was mentioned as influencing both participation and non-participation.

conclusionsA significant influential factor determining willingness to participate in studies was one's contentment with patient-physician communication. In order to guarantee an adequate patient decision-making process, keeping existing standards for patient briefings is absolutely mandatory.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchAgedAltruismBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMiddle AgedPatientsPhysiciansTrust

Identifiers

PMID24312584
PMCPMC3847121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.