Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32720899›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2020

Information Needs of Breast Cancer Patients: Theory-Generating Meta-Synthesis.

Hongru Lu, Juan Xie, Lynette Hammond Gerido, Ying Cheng, Ya Chen, Lizhu Sun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Listening to Learn: What Breast Cancer Podcasts Teach Patients.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Hongru LuSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7288-5296
Juan XieSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7233-5788
Lynette Hammond GeridoSchool of Information, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2243-6203
Ying ChengSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0664-7206
Ya ChenSchool of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4027-6795
Lizhu SunDepartment of Oncology, The Affiliated Shuyang Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Shuyang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8784-0664

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer has become one of the most frequently diagnosed carcinomas and the leading cause of cancer deaths. The substantial growth in the number of breast cancer patients has put great pressure on health services. Meanwhile, the information patients need has increased and become more complicated. Therefore, a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of their information needs is urgently needed to improve the quality of health care. However, previous studies related to the information needs of breast cancer patients have focused on different perspectives and have only contributed to individual results. A systematic review and synthesis of breast cancer patients' information needs is critical.

objectiveThis paper aims to systematically identify, evaluate, and synthesize existing primary qualitative research on the information needs of breast cancer patients.

methodsWeb of Science, EBSCO, Scopus, ProQuest, PubMed, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched on February 12 and July 9, 2019, to collect relevant studies. A Google Scholar search, interpersonal network recommendations, and reference chaining were also conducted. Eligible studies included qualitative or mixed-methods studies focusing on the information needs (across the cancer continuum) of breast cancer patients or their social networks. Subsequently, a Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklist was used to assess the quality of included research. The results, findings, and discussions were extracted. Data analysis was guided by the theory-generating meta-synthesis and grounded theory approach.

resultsThree themes, 19 categories, and 55 concepts emerged: (1) incentives (physical abnormality, inquiry from others, subjective norm, and problems during appointments); (2) types of information needs (prevention, etiology, diagnosis, clinical manifestation, treatment, prognosis, impact and resumption of normal life, scientific research, and social assistance); (3) moderating variables (attitudes, health literacy, demographic characteristics, disease status, as well as political and cultural environment). The studies revealed that the information needs of breast cancer patients were triggered by different incentives. Subsequently, the patients sought a variety of information among different stages of the cancer journey. Five types of variables were also found to moderate the formation of information needs.

conclusionsThis study contributes to a thorough model of information needs among breast cancer patients and provides practical suggestions for health and information professionals.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth ServicesHumansQualitative Researchbreast cancer patientsincentivesinformation needsmeta-synthesismoderating variables

Identifiers

PMID32720899
PMCPMC7420822

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.