Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213062›Full record

ArticleThe patient2023

Cancer Survivor Preferences for Models of Breast Cancer Follow-Up Care: Selecting Attributes for Inclusion in a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Sanjeewa Kularatna, Michelle Allen, Ruvini M Hettiarachchi, Fiona Crawford-Williams, Sameera Senanayake, David Brain, Nicolas H Hart, Bogda Koczwara, Carolyn Ee, Raymond J Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cancer survivor preferences for breast cancer follow-up care: a discrete choice experiment.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Sanjeewa KularatnaAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Michelle AllenAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Ruvini M HettiarachchiCentre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, QLD, Brisbane, Australia.
Fiona Crawford-WilliamsCaring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Fiona.crawfordwilliams@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3897-333X
Sameera SenanayakeAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
David BrainAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Nicolas H HartCaring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Bogda KoczwaraCollege of Medicine and Public Health and Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Carolyn EeCaring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Raymond J ChanCaring Futures Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveIt is critical to evaluate cancer survivors' preferences when developing follow-up care models to better address the needs of cancer survivors. This study was conducted to understand the key attributes of breast cancer follow-up care for use in a future discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey.

methodsKey attributes of breast cancer follow-up care models were generated using a multi-stage, mixed-methods approach. Focus group discussions were conducted with cancer survivors and clinicians to generate a range of attributes of current and ideal follow-up care. These attributes were then prioritised using an online survey with survivors and healthcare providers. The DCE attributes and levels were finalised via an expert panel discussion based on the outcomes of the previous stages.

resultsFour focus groups were held, two with breast cancer survivors (n = 7) and two with clinicians (n = 8). Focus groups generated sixteen attributes deemed important for breast cancer follow-up care models. The prioritisation exercise was conducted with 20 participants (14 breast cancer survivors and 6 clinicians). Finally, the expert panel selected five attributes for a future DCE survey tool to elicit cancer survivors' preferences on breast cancer follow-up care. The final attributes included: the care team, allied health and supportive care, survivorship care planning, travel for appointments, and out-of-pocket costs.

conclusionsAttributes identified can be used in future DCE studies to elicit cancer survivors' preferences for breast cancer follow-up care. This strengthens the design and implementation of follow-up care programs that best suit the needs and expectations of breast cancer survivors.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsAftercareChoice BehaviorFemaleFocus GroupsHumansPatient Preference

Identifiers

PMID37213062
PMCPMC10201515

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.