ArticleBMC public health2015
Geographic variation in the intended choice of adjuvant treatments for women diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer in Queensland.
Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application of spatial measures to analyse health service accessibility in Australia: a systematic review and recommendations for future practice.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Variations in outcomes by residential location for women with breast cancer: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Disparities in Healthcare Services and Spatial Assessments of Mobile Health Clinics in the Border Regions of Thailand.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Evaluating an intervention for neural tube defects in coal mining cites in China: a temporal and spatial analysis.International health · 2021Article
- A Review of Models Used for Investigating Barriers to Healthcare Access in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
- Observational
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough early diagnosis and improved treatment can reduce breast cancer mortality, there still appears to be a geographic differential in patient outcomes. This study aims to determine and quantify spatial inequalities in intended adjuvant (radio-, chemo- and hormonal) therapy usage among women with screen-detected breast cancer in Queensland, Australia.
methodsLinked population-based datasets from BreastScreen Queensland and the Queensland Cancer Registry during 1997-2008 for women aged 40-89 years were used. We adopted a Bayesian shared spatial component model to evaluate the relative intended use of each adjuvant therapy across 478 areas as well as common spatial patterns between treatments.
resultsWomen living closer to a cancer treatment facility were more likely to intend to use adjuvant therapy. This was particularly marked for radiotherapy when travel time to the closest radiation facility was 4 + h (OR =0.41, 95 % CrI: [0.23, 0.74]) compared to <1 h. The shared spatial effect increased towards the centres with concentrations of radiotherapy facilities, in north-east (Townsville) and south-east (Brisbane) regions of Queensland. Moreover, the presence of residual shared spatial effects indicates that there are other unmeasured geographical barriers influencing women's treatment choices.
conclusionsThis highlights the need to identify the additional barriers that impact on treatment intentions among women diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer, particularly for those women living further away from cancer treatment centers.
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.