Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30088139›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2019

Breaking bad news of a breast cancer diagnosis over the telephone: an emerging trend.

Jane A McElroy, Christine M Proulx, LaShaune Johnson, Katie M Heiden-Rootes, Emily L Albright, Jamie Smith, Maria T Brown

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. COVID 19 and breast surgery - silver linings?The British journal of surgery · 2020
    Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Jane A McElroyDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri School of Medicine, MA306 Medical Science Dr, 7 Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO, 65212, USA. mcelroyja@missouri.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7518-747X
Christine M ProulxDepartment of Human Development and Family Science, University of Missouri, 314 Gentry Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA.
LaShaune JohnsonMaster of Public Health Program, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE, 68181, USA.
Katie M Heiden-RootesDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 3700 Lindell Blvd, Ste 1101, St. Louis, MO, 63119, USA.
Emily L AlbrightDepartment of Surgery, University of Missouri School of Medicine, One Hospital Dr., Columbia, MO, 65212, USA.
Jamie SmithDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri School of Medicine, MA306 Medical Science Dr, 7 Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO, 65212, USA.
Maria T BrownSchool of Social Work, Falk College, Syracuse University, 320D Lyman Hall, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study evaluated how breast cancer diagnoses were shared with patients.

methodsCurrent members of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation's Army of Women cohort were sent one email with a link to a survey assessing how their breast cancer diagnosis was communicated, a description of their support system during treatment, basic demographic information, and breast cancer diagnosis details.

resultsParticipants (n = 2896) were more likely to be given their diagnosis over the telephone in more recent years (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.08). Up until about 10 years ago (1967-2006), breast cancer diagnoses were communicated in person more often than by telephone. Since 2006, more than half of participants learned about their diagnosis over the telephone. From 2015 to 2017, almost 60% of participants learned about their diagnosis over the telephone. Among those who heard the news in person, a steady 40% were alone. Characteristics of those who received the news over the telephone included having identified support members, heterosexual identity, and a diagnosis of in situ breast cancer.

conclusionsReceiving a telephone call about breast cancer diagnosis may be the norm rather than the exception in health care today. Trends in practice, as well as current best practices based primarily on expert opinion, may not provide optimal care for women diagnosed with breast cancer. Patient outcome research to guide future practice, such as the impact of modes of delivery of bad news, is urgently needed to determine appropriate patient-centered approaches for notification of breast cancer diagnoses.

Indexed as

Truth DisclosureAgedAged, 80 and overBreast Carcinoma In SituBreast NeoplasmsCommunicationElectronic MailEquipment and Supplies UtilizationFemaleHeterosexualityHumansMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and QuestionnairesTelephoneYoung AdultBad newsBreast cancer diagnosisPatient-provider communicationTelephone communication

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.