Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35671420›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2022

Breast Medical Oncologists' Perspectives of Telemedicine for Breast Cancer Care: A Survey Study.

Eleni Stavrou, Jeanna Qiu, Affan Zafar, Angela C Tramontano, Steven Isakoff, Eric Winer, Deborah Schrag, Christopher Manz

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Transforming patient-centered cancer care using telehealth: the MATCHES Center.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Eleni StavrouDana Farber Cancer Institute.ORCID 0000-0001-6685-7486
Jeanna QiuHarvard Medical School.ORCID 0000-0002-6155-8548
Affan ZafarDana Farber Cancer Institute.
Angela C TramontanoDana Farber Cancer Institute.ORCID 0000-0001-5718-6297
Steven IsakoffHarvard Medical School.ORCID 0000-0002-6677-1014
Eric WinerDana Farber Cancer Institute.ORCID 0000-0002-8819-1723
Deborah SchragMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Christopher ManzDana Farber Cancer Institute.ORCID 0000-0003-0928-3492
Harvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM007753 · NIGMS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (MEDICAL SCHOOL) · PI WALENSKY, LOREN DAVID · 1985 to 2021
$50.0M
Physician Scientist Training in Cancer ResearchT32CA009172 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE · PI Jennifer R Brown, James A. DeCaprio · 1985 to 2026
$17.1M
Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM144273 · NIGMS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI David Shumway Jones, Jacqueline A. Lees · 2022 to 2026
$14.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009172NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007753NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM144273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe COVID-19 pandemic forced rapid adoption of telemedicine (TM) for breast oncology visits in the United States, but the appropriate role of postpandemic TM is uncertain. We sought to understand physician and advance practice practitioner perspectives on the use of TM for outpatient breast cancer care through an electronically administered survey.

methodsBreast medical oncology clinicians at two academic cancer centers and five satellite locations affiliated with the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and the Massachusetts General Cancer Center were invited to respond to a 21-question survey administered in September 2021 about clinicians' perceptions and attitudes toward TM during the previous 12 months.

resultsOf the 71 survey invitations, 51 clinicians (36 physicians and 15 advance practice practitioners) provided survey responses (response rate = 72%). Ninety-two percent of respondents (n = 47) agreed that TM visits enhance patient care. Ninety-two percent of respondents (n = 46) also agreed that TM is valuable for early-stage breast cancer follow-up visits. Most respondents felt that there was no difference between TM and face-to-face (F2F) visits when it came to patient adherence, ease of ordering tests, ease of accessing patient records, and workflow outside of the visit (82%, 82%, 78%, and 53%, respectively). Fifty-one percent of respondents (n = 26) said that TM was better for timely access to follow-up appointments. Most respondents said that F2F visits were better for seeing physical problems, personal connection with patients, overall quality of visits, and patient-physician communication (100%, 75%, 65%, and 63%, respectively).

conclusionBreast clinicians believe that TM is a valuable tool to enhance outpatient breast cancer care. TM was felt to be appropriate for routine follow-up visits and second opinion consultations and is as good as or better than F2F visits for several routine aspects of breast cancer care.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCOVID-19OncologistsTelemedicineFemaleHumansPandemicsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35671420
PMCPMC9509057
OpenAlexW4281615779

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.