Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24762560›Full record

Trial reportCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2014

A randomized, controlled trial to increase discussion of breast cancer in primary care.

Celia P Kaplan, Jennifer Livaudais-Toman, Jeffrey A Tice, Karla Kerlikowske, Steven E Gregorich, Eliseo J Pérez-Stable, Rena J Pasick, Alice Chen, Jessica Quinn, Leah S Karliner

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening in Malaysia: Challenges and Opportunities.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Celia P KaplanAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; and Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California celia.kaplan@ucsf.edu.
Jennifer Livaudais-TomanAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine;
Jeffrey A TiceAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; and.
Karla KerlikowskeAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; and.
Steven E GregorichAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Eliseo J Pérez-StableAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; and Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Rena J PasickAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; and.
Alice ChenAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; and.
Jessica QuinnAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine;
Leah S KarlinerAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; and Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.

Funding

Ujima Mentoring ProgramP30MH062246 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Sheri Ann Lippman · 2001 to 2026
$57.4M
RESOURCE CENTER FOR AGING RESEARCH IN DIVERSE POPULATIONP30AG015272 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LEAH S KARLINER · 1997 to 2026
$19.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG015272NIA NIH HHS P30-AG15272NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH062246
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessment and discussion of individual risk for breast cancer within the primary care setting are crucial to discussion of risk reduction and timely referral.

methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial of a multiethnic, multilingual sample of women ages 40 to 74 years from two primary care practices (one academic, one safety net) to test a breast cancer risk assessment and education intervention. Patients were randomly assigned to control or intervention group. All patients completed a baseline telephone survey and risk assessment (via telephone for controls, via tablet computer in clinic waiting room before visit for intervention). Intervention (BreastCARE) patients and their physicians received an individualized risk report to discuss during the visit. One-week follow-up telephone surveys with all patients assessed patient-physician discussion of family cancer history, personal breast cancer risk, high-risk clinics, and genetic counseling/testing.

resultsA total of 655 control and 580 intervention women completed the risk assessment and follow-up interview; 25% were high-risk by family history, Gail, or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk models. BreastCARE increased discussions of family cancer history [OR, 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-1.91], personal breast cancer risk (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.02-5.70), high-risk clinics (OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 2.13-6.95), and genetic counseling/testing (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.34-3.68). Among high-risk women, all intervention effects were stronger.

conclusionsAn intervention combining an easy-to-use, quick risk assessment tool with patient-centered risk reports at the point of care can successfully promote discussion of breast cancer risk reduction between patients and primary care physicians, particularly for high-risk women. IMPACT: Next steps include scaling and dissemination of BreastCARE with integration into electronic medical record systems.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPrimary Health CareRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID24762560
PMCPMC4167008

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.