Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26476466›Full record

Trial reportBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2015

Impact of a primary care based intervention on breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern: A randomized, controlled trial.

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

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01830933 (Breast Cancer Risk Reduction), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT01830933 nacompletednot on this map

Breast Cancer Risk Reduction: A Patient Doctor Intervention

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2011 to 2012Enrolled1,235ConditionsBreast CancerArmsBreastCARE
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for raising breast cancer awareness in women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Knowledge, Perceptions, and Satisfaction of Moroccan Women Towards a New Breast Cancer Screening Program in Morocco.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Women with Family History of Breast Cancer: How Much Are They Aware of Their Risk?Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Behavioral Economics: A New Lens for Understanding Genomic Decision Making.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Targeting breast cancer outcomes-what about the primary relatives?Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2017
    Article
  19. 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.

Jennifer Livaudais-TomanDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: jennifer.toman@ucsf.edu.
Leah S KarlinerDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jeffrey A TiceDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Karla KerlikowskeDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Steven GregorichDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Eliseo J Pérez-StableDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Rena J PasickDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Alice ChenDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jessica QuinnDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Celia P KaplanDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

RESOURCE CENTER FOR AGING RESEARCH IN DIVERSE POPULATIONP30AG015272 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Nynikka Palmer · 1997 to 2026
$19.5M
REDES EN ACCION--CANCER AWARENESS, TRAINING AND RESEARCHU01CA086117 · NCI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI RAMIREZ, AMELIE G · 2000 to 2005
$9.0M
Training ProgramU54CA153511 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI RAMIREZ, AMELIE G · 2010 to 2015
$6.2M
NATIONAL NETWORK FOR HISPANIC CANCER PREVENTIONU01CA059379 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR SAN ANT · PI RAMIREZ, AMELIE G · 1992 to 1999
–
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA059379NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086117NCI NIH HHS U01CA86117NCI NIH HHS U54 CA153511NCI NIH HHS U54CA153511NIA NIH HHS P30 AG015272
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo estimate the effects of a tablet-based, breast cancer risk education intervention for use in primary care settings (BreastCARE) on patients' breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern.

methodsFrom June 2011-August 2012, we enrolled women from two clinics, aged 40-74 years with no personal breast cancer history, and randomized them to the BreastCARE intervention group or to the control group. All patients completed a baseline telephone survey and risk assessment (via telephone for controls, via tablet computer in clinic waiting room prior to visit for intervention). All women were categorized as high or average risk based on the Referral Screening Tool, the Gail model or the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model. Intervention patients and their physicians received an individualized risk report to discuss during the visit. All women completed a follow-up telephone survey 1-2 weeks after risk assessment. Post-test comparisons estimated differences at follow-up in breast cancer knowledge, risk perception and concern.

results580 intervention and 655 control women completed follow-up interviews. Mean age was 56 years (SD = 9). At follow-up, 73% of controls and 71% of intervention women correctly perceived their breast cancer risk and 22% of controls and 24% of intervention women were very concerned about breast cancer. Intervention patients had greater knowledge (≥75% correct answers) of breast cancer risk factors at follow-up (24% vs. 16%; p = 0.002). In multivariable analysis, there were no differences in correct risk perception or concern, but intervention patients had greater knowledge ([OR] = 1.62; 95% [CI] = 1.19-2.23).

conclusionsA simple, practical intervention involving physicians at the point of care can improve knowledge of breast cancer without increasing concern.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01830933.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsComputers, HandheldConsumer Health InformationEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPerceptionPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesBreast cancerHealth-related information technologyPreventionRCTRisk reduction

Identifiers

PMID26476466
PMCPMC4698352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.