Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30839106›Full record

Observational studyCancer2019

Patient recommendations for reducing long-lasting economic burden after breast cancer.

Lorraine T Dean, Shadiya L Moss, Sarah I Rollinson, Livia Frasso Jaramillo, Raheem J Paxton, Jill T Owczarzak

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Financial toxicity experienced by patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Sociodemographic Factors related to Financial Toxicity among Cancer Patients and Survivors:"The Second Cancer Patient Experience Survey" - A Nationwide Study in Japan.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  8. Beyond breast cancer: mapping unmet needs and advancing an evidence-based framework of survivorship care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cancer cost-related subjective financial distress among breast cancer: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Patient-reported benefit from proposed interventions to reduce financial toxicity during cancer treatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Addressing financial toxicity in oncology care.Journal of hospital management and health policy · 2021
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lorraine T DeanDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-2272-2755
Shadiya L MossDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Sarah I RollinsonDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Livia Frasso JaramilloDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Raheem J PaxtonDepartment of Community Medicine and Population Health, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Jill T OwczarzakDepartment of Health Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University · USColumbia University · USUniversity of Alabama · US

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAM George NELSON · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Richard E. Chaisson · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
Substance Abuse Epidemiology Training Program (SAETP) at Columbia UniversityT32DA031099 · NIDA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI DEBORAH S HASIN, Silvia Saboia Martins · 2012 to 2026
$6.1M
The Brown Initiative in HIV and AIDS Clinical Research for Minority CommunitiesR25MH083620 · NIMH · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI NUNN, AMY STEWART · 2008 to 2025
$3.7M
Social Determinants of Breast Cancer SurvivorshipK01CA184288 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DEAN, LORRAINE TIERA · 2014 to 2018
$767k
NCI NIH HHS K01 CA184288NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA031099NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH083620
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the United States, patients who have breast cancer experience significant economic burden compared with those who have other types of cancers. Cancer-related economic burden is exacerbated by adverse treatment effects. Strategies to resolve the economic burden caused by breast cancer and its adverse treatment effects have stemmed from the perspectives of health care providers, oncology navigators, and other subject-matter experts. For the current study, patient-driven recommendations were elicited to reduce economic burden after 1) breast cancer and 2) breast cancer-related lymphedema, which is a common, persistent adverse effect of breast cancer.

methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 40 long-term breast cancer survivors who were residents of Pennsylvania or New Jersey in 2015 and were enrolled in a 6-month observational study. Purposive sampling ensured equal representation by age, socioeconomic position, and lymphedema diagnosis. Semistructured interviews addressed economic challenges, supports used, and patient recommendations for reducing financial challenges. Interviews were coded, and representative quotes from the patient recommendations were analyzed and reported to illustrate key findings.

resultsOf 40 interviewees (mean age, 64 years; mean time since diagnosis, 12 years), 27 offered recommendations to reduce the economic burden caused by cancer and its adverse treatment effects. Nine recommendations emerged across 4 major themes: expanding affordable insurance and insurance-covered items, especially for lymphedema treatment (among the 60% who reported lymphedema); supportive domestic help; financial assistance from diagnosis through treatment; and employment-preserving policies.

conclusionsThe current study yielded 9 actionable, patient-driven recommendations-changes to insurance, supportive services, financial assistance, and protective policies-to reduce breast cancer-related economic burden. These recommendations should be tested through policy and programmatic interventions.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceAgedBreast Cancer LymphedemaBreast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsCost of IllnessFemaleHumansInsurance CoverageInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedNew JerseyPatient SelectionPennsylvaniaQualitative ResearchSocioeconomic Factorsbreast cancereconomic burdenlymphedemaqualitative analysisUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30839106
PMCPMC6508994
OpenAlexW2920975370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.