ArticleBMJ open2017
Health information needs, source preferences and engagement behaviours of women with metastatic breast cancer across the care continuum: protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Hospital to Home: Patient Experiences With Medication Counselling for Colorectal Cancer.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Article
- Development of Mobile App for Breast Examination Awareness Using Health Belief Model: A Qualitative Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
- Information Needs of Breast Cancer Patients: Theory-Generating Meta-Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Review
- Dynamics of health information-seeking behaviour among older adults with very low incomes in Ghana: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Peer support opportunities across the cancer care continuum: a systematic scoping review of recent peer-reviewed literature.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe health information needs, information source preferences and engagement behaviours of women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) depend on personal characteristics such as education level, prior knowledge, clinical complications, comorbidities and where they are in the cancer journey. A thorough understanding of the information behaviours of women living with mBC is essential to the provision of optimal care. A preliminary literature review suggests that there is little research on this topic, but that there may be lessons from a slightly broader literature. This review will identify what is known and what is not known about the health information needs, acquisition and influences of women with mBC across the care continuum. Findings will help to identify research needs and specific areas where in-depth systematic reviews may be feasible, as well as inform evidence-based interventions to address the health information needs of female patients with mBC with different demographics and characteristics and across the mBC journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review will be performed using the guidelines of Arksey and O'Malley as updated by subsequent authors to systematically search scientific and grey literature for articles in English that discuss the health information needs, source preferences, engagement styles, and associated personal and medical attributes of women ≥18 years living with mBC at different stages of the disease course. A variety of databases (including Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Academic Search Premier, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and PQDT Open), oncology, patient advocacy and governmental websites will be searched from inception to present day. Research and non-research literature will be included; no study designs will be excluded. The six-stage Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodological framework involves: (1) identifying the research question; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results; and (6) consulting with stakeholders to inform or validate study findings (optional). Data will be extracted and analysed using a thematic chart and descriptive content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Being a secondary analysis, this research will not require ethics approval. Results will be disseminated through patient support organisations and websites and publications targeting healthcare professionals, advocates and patients.
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.