Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34805385›Full record

ArticlemHealth2021

Acceptability of an mHealth breast cancer risk-reduction intervention promoting risk assessment, education, and discussion of risk in the primary care setting.

Celia P Kaplan, Leah Karliner, Andrew Lee, Jennifer Livaudais-Toman, Jeffrey A Tice, Elissa Ozanne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in mHealth, 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  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

6 authors.

Celia P KaplanDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Leah KarlinerDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Andrew LeeDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jennifer Livaudais-TomanDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jeffrey A TiceDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Elissa OzannePopulation Health Science, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

RESOURCE CENTER FOR AGING RESEARCH IN DIVERSE POPULATIONP30AG015272 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Nynikka Palmer · 1997 to 2026
$19.5M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG015272
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer risk assessment tools and risk reduction strategies have advanced significantly over the past few decades but are underutilized in practice, due in part to limited acceptability by patients and physicians. We implemented a tablet-based Breast Cancer Risk Education Intervention (BreastCARE) tailored towards increasing patients' knowledge about their individual risk of developing breast cancer, increasing patient-physician discussion of breast cancer risk reduction practices, and increasing participation in recommended screening.

methodsWe surveyed patients and physicians who received the BreastCARE intervention and analyzed their satisfaction and acceptability of the intervention. We compared patient satisfaction measures by race/ethnicity and used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the effect of race/ethnicity on measures of patient satisfaction with the tablet-based risk assessment and with the breast cancer risk report. We also compared measures of physician satisfaction by resident

resultsOverall, both patients and physicians were highly satisfied with BreastCARE, with some variation by patient race/ethnicity and breast cancer risk status. The risk assessment tool and accompanying risk report helped transmit complex information in an efficient way.

conclusionsPatient self-administered risk assessment with a health education component at the point of care is acceptable for both patients and physicians, and represents a novel approach to facilitating health promotion. This risk assessment tool should be made routine in primary care accompanied by results that are easy for the patient to understand and actionable for the clinician.

Indexed as

breast cancer risk assessmentcommunicationdisseminationimplementationpatient satisfactionPhysician satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID34805385
PMCPMC8572750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.