Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31201584›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2019

Talking about risk in the context of genomic tests (TARGET): development and evaluation of an educational program for clinicians.

L Fallowfield, I Solis-Trapala, R Starkings, S Catt, S May, V Jenkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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.

L FallowfieldSussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9RX, UK. l.j.fallowfield@sussex.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0577-4518
I Solis-TrapalaFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1264-1396
R StarkingsSussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9RX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1947-018X
S CattSussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9RX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9898-2289
S MaySussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9RX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3167-9891
V JenkinsSussex Health Outcomes Research & Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9RX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-0081

Funding

Breast Cancer Research Foundation BCRF-17-050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeGene expression profiling (GEP) test scores calculate risks of recurrence and likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive, HER2-negative, early-stage breast cancer. As health literacy and numeracy skills in the general population are poor, healthcare professionals (HCPs) require a wide repertoire of communication skills to explain clearly risk of recurrence scores (RSs) and uncertainty. We developed and evaluated an educational program for HCPs discussing GEP test results and adjuvant treatment.

methodsEight-hour workshops contained elements aimed at improving knowledge, communication skills and self-awareness; these included the science underpinning GEP tests, an interactive risk psychology lecture, exercises and facilitated group discussions regarding seven filmed scenarios involving discussions about high, intermediate and low RSs. Attendees were recorded explaining RSs with patient simulators pre and post workshop. Researchers, blinded to time point, analysed recordings using a study-specific scoring system. Primary objective outcomes were improvements post workshop in HCPs' competence and confidence when communicating 17 pre-specified key information areas. We estimated odds ratios (OR) using conditional logistic regression to compare pre- and post-workshop scores.

results65 HCPs attended. Objective analyses revealed significant positive shifts post workshop which included explaining GEP tests (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.38-6.42; P = .001), recurrence RSs (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.72-9.25; P < .001), benefits of chemotherapy (OR 3.99; 95% CI 1.82-8.75; P < .001; and harms OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.37-3.92; P < .001) using jargon free language (OR 5.29; 95% CI 2.27-12.35; P < .001). Patient simulator assessments also showed significant improvements as did HCPs' self-assessments and ratings of their self-confidence when discussing different GEP tests with diverse patient types (P < .001).

conclusionThese short, intensive, interactive TARGET workshops significantly improved HCPs' communication about GEP results in ways likely to promote more informed decision-making by patients about chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGenomicsBreast NeoplasmsDecision MakingEducation, MedicalFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleOdds RatioPhysiciansUnited KingdomBreast cancerChemotherapyCommunicationGenomic test resultsRisk of recurrence

Identifiers

PMID31201584
PMCPMC6745030

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.