ArticleBMJ open2021
Patient and public priorities for breast cancer research: a qualitative study in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the experiences of women living with metastatic breast cancer [MBC]: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Patients' perspectives on the relevance of biosimilars' outcomes in oncology: qualitative study with nominal group technique.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Establishing Research Priorities in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Data-driven and Stakeholder-informed Approach.Oman medical journal · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- The Traces of Cancer: A Metaphorical Understanding of the Experiences of Women Living Beyond Breast Cancer.Qualitative health research · 2024Article
- No association between breast pain and breast cancer: a prospective cohort study of 10 830 symptomatic women presenting to a breast cancer diagnostic clinic.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
- Development of a breast cancer case management information platform (BC-CMIP) module based on patient-perceived value.Frontiers in oncology · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInternationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals have published breast cancer research gaps that are informing research funding priorities in the UK and worldwide. We aimed to determine the breast cancer research priorities of the public to compare with those identified by clinicians and scientists.
designWe conducted a qualitative study and thematic analysis using 'listening events' where patients with breast cancer and public representatives used a patient's breast cancer journey to identify research themes. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingFemale participants were recruited from attendees at participating hospitals and support groups in the northwest of England, including patients, their family and friends as well as staff at a local retail centre.
interventionA framework approach was used to analyse transcribed discussions until thematic saturation was reached.
main outcome measuresBreast cancer research priorities were identified from participant discussions and compared with the published gaps identified by scientists and healthcare professionals.
resultsThematic saturation was reached after 27 female participants participated in listening events. Our participants consistently focused on improved methods of dissemination of information and improving education on the signs and symptoms of breast cancer. This was not highlighted by scientists or healthcare professionals. There was strong emphasis on quality of life-related issues such as side effects of treatment. There was some agreement between the priorities deduced by our study and those of the professionals in the areas of screening, prevention and breast reconstruction.
conclusionOur study identified some research themes that were not identified by scientists and healthcare professionals in two earlier landmark studies. This highlights the importance of including patients and public representatives when setting research priorities. The results should be used to guide investigators when planning future studies and for funding bodies in allocating resources for future projects.
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.