ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2020
Increasing Engagement for Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment: The "ICANTREAT" Community of Expertise Initiative.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stakeholder engagement in healthcare research in India - A systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2025Pooled it
- Supporting our survivors: an evaluation of the facilitators and barriers to advocacy in cervical and breast cancer survivors.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Article
- Using Human-Centered Design Tools to Improve Health Justice.Journal of graduate medical education · 2024Article
- Health status and associated factors of middle-aged and older adult cancer survivors in India: results from the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India.BMC cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncidence of breast cancer and associated mortality are on the rise globally. Breast cancer incidence in India is on the rise and also accounts for a staggering 50% mortality rate among women. Health illiteracy, socio-economic and cultural barriers in addition to lack of an organized nationwide screening and prevention programme contribute to poor patient outcomes. Thus, it is imperative to strengthen the existing screening and treatment facilities to address the increasing cancer burden. In this regard, we conducted a workshop to investigate the scope of a multi- stakeholder engagement in breast cancer screening and treatment.
methodsA stakeholder workshop grounded in an established co-design methodology was convened in a semi-urban coastal district in South India with active participation of physicians, surgeons, occupational therapists, community leaders, programme officers, public health professionals and breast cancer survivors. Shiffman and Smith's framework was adapted to highlight barriers to screening and role of stakeholders in the co-design of solutions.
resultsDeliberate and active discussions marked the workshop proceedings resulting in the identification of individual and systems level barriers, facilitators and implementation strategies. Social stigma and non-existent standard protocols for screening and referral were recognised as critical barriers, while community engagement and a dedicated patient advocate were the proposed facilitators.
conclusionThis workshop was an important step in bringing together key stakeholders and marked the beginning of the ICANTREAT initiative and a Community of Expertise. The outcomes highlight the importance of stakeholder involvement in the cancer- care pathway for breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment.
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.