Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30627960›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment2019

National consensus recommendations on patient-centered care for ductal carcinoma in situ.

Anna R Gagliardi, Frances C Wright, Nicole J Look Hong, Gary Groot, Lucy Helyer, Pamela Meiers, May Lynn Quan, Robin Urquhart, Rebecca Warburton

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Recommendations to improve patient-centred care for ductal carcinoma in situ: Qualitative focus groups with women.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  8. Quality of DCIS information on the internet: a content analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019
    Review
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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Anna R GagliardiToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, M5G2C4, Canada. anna.gagliardi@uhnresearch.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5721-809X
Frances C WrightOdette Cancer Research Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Nicole J Look HongOdette Cancer Research Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Gary GrootGeneral Surgery & Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Lucy HelyerDepartment of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Pamela MeiersIrene and Leslie Dubé Centre of Care Breast Health Centre, Saskatoon City Hospital, Saskatoon, Canada.
May Lynn QuanCalgary Breast Health Program Foothills Medical Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Robin UrquhartDepartment of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Rebecca WarburtonDepartment of Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Dalhousie University · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CASaskatoon City Hospital · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this research was to generate recommendations on strategies to achieve patient-centered care (PCC) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

methodsThirty clinicians (surgeons, medical/radiation oncologists, radiologists, nurses, navigators) who manage DCIS and 32 DCIS survivors aged 18 or older were nominated. Forty-six recommendations to support PCC for DCIS were derived from primary research, and rated in a two-round Delphi process from March to June 2018.

resultsA total of 29 clinicians and 27 women completed Round One, and 28 clinicians and 22 women completed Round Two. The 29 recommendations retained by both women and clinicians reflected the PCC domains of fostering patient-physician relationship (5), exchanging information (5), responding to emotions (1), managing uncertainty (4), making decisions (9), and enabling patient self-management (5). An additional 13 recommendations were retained by women only: fostering patient-physician relationship (1), exchanging information (3), responding to emotions (2), making decisions (3), and enabling patient self-management (4). Some recommendations refer to processes (i.e., ask questions about lifestyle or views about risks/outcomes to understand patient preferences); others to tools (i.e., communication aid). Panelists recommended a separate consensus process to refine the language that clinicians use when describing DCIS.

conclusionsThis is the first study to generate guidance on how to achieve PCC for DCIS. Organizations that deliver or oversee health care can use these recommendations on PCC for DCIS to plan, evaluate, or improve services. Ongoing research is needed to develop communication tools, and establish labels and language for DCIS that optimize communication.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCanadaClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansPatient Care TeamPatient-Centered CarePhysician-Patient RelationsConsensusDuctal carcinoma in situPatient-centered careRecommendations

Identifiers

PMID30627960
PMCPMC6438938
OpenAlexW2908879255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.