ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022
Hobson's choice or a horned dilemma: a grounded theory on adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy verified with breast cancer survivors.
Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Experience of Patients with Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Patient Journey Map Based on Qualitative Research.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Resistance to Resilience: Understanding Post-surgical Hormone Therapy in Breast Cancer Care.Cureus · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA literature review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research had enabled us to develop a grounded theory explaining the difficulties breast cancer survivors face with the initial decision to accept long-term endocrine therapy, and the everyday challenges of continuing or deciding to stop treatment early. Our objective was to interview a cohort of women in a UK setting to corroborate and complete the grounded theory with the end users' primary involvement.
methodsA semi-structured interview schedule was written based on the existing grounded theory. Fourteen women with a history of hormone-positive breast cancer were recruited and interviewed. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed against the existing grounded theory.
resultsThe findings were compatible with the core theory 'Hobson's choice or a horned dilemma' and its constituent categories previously developed, with additional concepts identified and added to our paradigm models. Importantly, we found that some women who started with a strong sense of commitment to their treatment changed their mind as they experienced the medication side effects over time, impacting on their persistence with long-term endocrine therapy.
conclusionThe findings indicate an opportunity for health providers to intervene and influence women's waning perceptions of the necessity of their treatment, for example upon experiencing the side effects. Interventions could involve the provision of side effect management strategies via accessible resources.
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.