ArticlePloS one2019
A qualitative comparison of how older breast cancer survivors process treatment information regarding endocrine therapy.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of medication side effects on adherence and persistence to hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2021Pooled it
- The Experience of Patients with Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Patient Journey Map Based on Qualitative Research.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Clinical Pharmacist-Led Interventions for Improving Breast Cancer Management-A Scoping Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- When can cancer patient treatment nonadherence be considered intentional or unintentional? A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Systematic adaptation of the adherence improving self-management strategy to support breast cancer survivors' adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy: An intervention mapping approach.European journal of cancer care · 2022Review
- Use of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Among Post-Menopausal Breast Cancer Patients in Malaysia.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Aromatase inhibitors: The unexpected breast cancer treatment.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt remains unclear how information about aromatase inhibitors (AI) impacts women's decision-making about persistence with endocrine therapy. PURPOSE: To describe and compare how women treated for primary early stage breast cancer either persisting or not persisting with an AI received, interpreted, and acted upon AI-related information.
designThematic analysis was used to sort and compare the data into the most salient themes.
participantsWomen (N = 54; 27 persisting, 27 not persisting with an AI) aged 65-93 years took part in qualitative interviews.
resultsWomen in both subgroups described information similarly in terms of its value, volume, type, and source. Aspects of AI-related information that either differed between the subgroups or were misunderstood by one or both subgroups included: (1) knowledge of AI or tamoxifen prior to cancer diagnosis, (2) use of online resources, (3) misconceptions about estrogen, hormone replacement therapies and AI-related symptoms, and (4) risk perception and the meaning and use of recurrence statistics such as Oncotype DX.
conclusionsPersisters and nonpersisters were similar in their desire for more information about potential side effects and symptom management at AI prescription and subsequent appointments. Differences included how information was obtained and interpreted. Interactive discussion questions are shared that can incorporate these findings into clinical settings.
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.