Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407389›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2021

An international mixed methods study to develop a new preference-based measure for women with breast cancer: the BREAST-Q Utility module.

Manraj N Kaur, Anne F Klassen, Feng Xie, Louise Bordeleau, Toni Zhong, Stefan J Cano, Elena Tsangaris, Trisia Breitkopf, Ayse Kuspinar, Andrea L Pusic

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Manraj N KaurMcMaster University, 3N27, 1280 Main Street W, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada. kaurmn@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-1911-0395
Anne F KlassenMcMaster University, 3N27, 1280 Main Street W, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Feng XieMcMaster University, CRL-223, 1280 Main Street W, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Louise BordeleauJuravinski Cancer Center, Room 3-17, 699 Concession Street, Hamilton, ON, L8V 5C2, Canada.
Toni ZhongToronto General Hospital, Norman Urquhart Wing, Toronto, ON, 8N-871M5G 2C4, Canada.
Stefan J CanoModus Outcomes, Suite 210b, Spirella Building, Letchworth Garden City, SG6 4ET, UK.
Elena TsangarisBrigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis S, Boston, MA, 02116, USA.
Trisia BreitkopfMcMaster University, 3N27, 1280 Main Street W, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Ayse KuspinarMcMaster University, Room 435, 1400 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada.
Andrea L PusicBrigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis S, Boston, MA, 02116, USA.

Funding

Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute 319371
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneric preference-based measures (PBM), though commonly used, may not be optimal for use in economic evaluations of breast cancer interventions. No breast cancer-specific PBM currently exists, and the generic PBMs fail to capture the unique concerns of women with breast cancer (e.g., body image, appearance, treatment-specific adverse effects). Hence, the objective of this study was to develop a breast cancer-specific PBM, the BREAST-Q Utility module.

methodsWomen diagnosed with breast cancer (stage 0-4, any treatment) were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Canada and one in the US. The study followed an exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, whereby semi-structured interviews were conducted and at the end of the interview, participants were asked to list their top five health-related quality of life (HRQOL) concerns and to rate the importance of each item on the BREAST-Q. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. Constant comparison was used to refine the codes and develop a conceptual framework. Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated to develop the content of the Utility module  that was refined through 2 rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and feedback from experts.

resultsInterviews were conducted with 57 women aged 55 ± 10 years. A conceptual framework was developed from 3948 unique codes specific to breasts, arms, abdomen, and cancer experience. Five top-level domains were HRQOL (i.e., physical, psychological, social, and sexual well-being) and appearance. Data from the interviews, top 5 HRQOL concerns, and BREAST-Q item ratings were used to inform dimensions for inclusion in the Utility module. Feedback from women with breast cancer (N = 9) and a multidisciplinary group of experts (N = 27) was used to refine the module. The field-test version of the HSCS consists of 10 unique dimensions. Each dimension is measured with 1 or 2 candidate items that have 4-5 response levels each.

conclusionThe field-test version of the BREAST-Q Utility module was derived from extensive patient and expert input. This comprehensive approach ensured that the content of the Utility module is relevant, comprehensive, and includes concerns that matter the most to women with breast cancer.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsQuality of LifeCanadaFemaleHumansPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesBreast cancerCost-effectivenessCost-utilityEconomic evaluationHealth utilityInterviewsPatient-reported outcomesPreference-based measureQualitative

Identifiers

PMID33407389
PMCPMC7789506

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.