Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36965058›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2023

Unsettling the treatment imperative? Chemotherapy decision-making in the wake of genomic techniques.

Emily Ross, Anne Kerr, Julia Swallow, Choon Key Chekar, Sarah Cunningham-Burley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Emily RossDepartment of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5165-7649
Anne KerrSchool of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Julia SwallowCentre for Biomedicine, Self, and Society, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9341-3239
Choon Key ChekarFaculty of Health & Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Sarah Cunningham-BurleyUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 104831/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust 219725/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social scientists have argued that a treatment imperative shapes experiences of biomedicine. This is evident within oncology, where discourses of hope are tempered by persistent fears surrounding cancer. It is within this context that genomic decision-making tools are entering routine care. These may indicate that a treatment is not appropriate for a particular disease profile. We draw on qualitative interviews and observations centred on gene expression profiling to consider the implications of this technique for the treatment imperative in early breast cancer. Influenced by sociological perspectives on medical technologies, we discuss how fallibilities of established tools have forged a space for the introduction of genomic testing into chemotherapy decision-making. We demonstrate how high expectations shaped patients' interpretations of this tool as facilitating the 'right' treatment choice. We then unpick these accounts, highlighting the complex relationship between gene expression profiling and treatment decision-making. We argue that anticipations for genomic testing to provide certainty in treatment choice must account for the sociocultural and organisational contexts in which it is used, including the powerful entwinement of chemotherapy and cancer. Our research has implications for sociological perspectives on treatment decision-making and clinical expectations for genomic medicine to resolve the 'problem' of overtreatment.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDecision MakingFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGenomicsHumansQualitative Researchbreast cancerchemotherapygene expression profilinggenomic medicinetreatment decision-makingtreatment imperative

Identifiers

PMID36965058
PMCPMC10946787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.