Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34408038›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

General practitioners' (GPs) understanding and views on breast density in Australia: a qualitative interview study.

Brooke Nickel, Hankiz Dolan, Stacy Carter, Nehmat Houssami, Meagan Brennan, Jolyn Hersch, Alia Kaderbhai, Kirsten McCaffery

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Australian Women's Responses to Breast Density Information: A Content Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Brooke NickelWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia brooke.nickel@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8100-4278
Hankiz DolanSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3185-168X
Stacy CarterWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2617-8694
Nehmat HoussamiWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Meagan BrennanSchool of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jolyn HerschWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5225-6639
Alia KaderbhaiThe Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferyWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006
The University of Sydney · AUCancer Institute of New South Wales · AURoyal Australian College of General Practitioners · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand general practitioners' (GPs') awareness and knowledge of mammographic breast density (BD) and their perspectives around information and potential notification of BD for women.

designQualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.

settingAustralia.

participantsAustralian GPs (n=30).

resultsGPs had limited knowledge of BD and little experience discussing BD with women. There were mixed views on notification of BD with some GPs believing this information would help informed decision making about breast health and that women have the right to know any information about their bodies. While others were concerned about causing unnecessary anxiety and were worried about the uncertainty about what to advise women to do with this information, particularly in relation to supplemental breast screening. The need for an equitable system where all women are either notified or not, and also provided with publicly funded supplemental screening was raised by GPs. Overall, there was high interest in education, training and support around the topic of BD.

conclusionsAustralian GPs require education, support and evidence-based guidelines to have discussions with women with dense breasts and help manage their risk, especially if widespread notification is to be introduced in population-based screening programmes.

Indexed as

Breast DensityGeneral PractitionersAustraliaFemaleHumansMass ScreeningQualitative Researchbreast imagingbreast tumoursprimary carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID34408038
PMCPMC8375715
OpenAlexW3195840644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.